The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Democracy
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

 
Hide 170 CommentsLeave a Comment
170 Comments to "Democracy"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Sholomocracy?

  2. He’s right. Democracy must be given by suppository if necessary: We sure showed that khudaffi.

    • LOL: Abe
    • Replies: @Anon7
    Spot on. Thanks for the lulz! I needed that.
  3. The Swedish interpretation: Democracy is our most fundamental value, but it no longer means rule by and for the people. That would be Populism, which is pure evil and the great enemy of Democracy. Democracy means protecting “vulnerable” folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    Democracy, if too democratic, turns against minorities - that's what we all call populism then = Democrazy gone astray.

    (As Sir Ralph Dahrendorf, head of the London School of Economics in the 80ies, remarked: The populist is always the other, especially if he is about to win an argument on a braod scale (=win over the populace...).

    PS
    Your comment is spot on!
    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    This is very well-stated; excellent comment.
    , @PiltdownMan

    The Swedish interpretation: Democracy is our most fundamental value, but it no longer means rule by and for the people. That would be Populism, which is pure evil and the great enemy of Democracy. Democracy means protecting “vulnerable” folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.
     
    To paraphrase you and Mr. Sailer's tweet, if a system elects a guy we like, then it is democracy, otherwise it is populism.

    You're not kidding about the avalanche of op-ed pieces about this, including the one by Noah Rothman that was highlighted by iSteve a couple of days ago. There seems to be some kind of effort at an intellectual counter-offensive going on, though no one seems to be able to pinpoint exactly what populism is.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-populism-really-the-villain-here/2018/03/07/de923c24-224a-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.c65f0ee594c5

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-its-so-difficult-to-kill-a-populist-movement/2018/03/09/28e2a7d2-22e6-11e8-badd-7c9f29a55815_story.html?utm_term=.fccc255c80d2

    , @Clyde

    Democracy means protecting “vulnerable” folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.
     
    Plus imports more in. The more dysfunctional and incompatible the better as in Somalians and AIDS victims. Export "dirty" industry and manufacturing that provide male jobs, import in 3rd wordlers. Third wordlers who will work in the industries of the future such as meat packing and clean energy. Going forward of course.
    , @AnotherDad

    The Swedish interpretation: Democracy is our most fundamental value, but it no longer means rule by and for the people. That would be Populism, which is pure evil and the great enemy of Democracy. Democracy means protecting “vulnerable” folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.
     
    Mr. Howells, this is an excellent comment.

    This to me is one of the goals of the ideology of what i've tagged as "Jewish minoritarianism"--minorities good/majorites bad--a nation's people don't actually have the right to rule.

    And this isn't just the "Swedish interpretation". As i was poking at in the Commentary/Noah Rothman thread, in the last couple of generations during the rise of the Jews America--and especially it's ideology--has become significantly less republican in character. The idea that we are free, self-reliant citizens and should manage our own affairs is practically non-existent in elite media. "Experts" the "people who know better" should be making decisions. (I was struck by a Seattle Times editorial maybe a dozen back on gay marriage, which basically said, "people should stop voting on this", it's time for this to be decided--i.e. instituted--by the courts. Right there in black in white in a major American paper, the people shouldn't get to decide what sort of relationships get the peoples' "we think this is great" stamp of approval.)

    And that's what we have. The "experts" in the courts and the permanent bureaucracy make all the relevant decisions. As far as i can tell the only thing elected representatives are allowed to do--against the wishes of the elites--is fiddle a bit with tax rates. And if the people vote in something else (e.g. traditional marriage) or vote in someone who tries do something else (e.g. not issue visas to people from some muslim nations) even with clear constitutional and legal authority, the courts will question whether the motives are sufficiently pure--compliant with minoritarianism--and block on those grounds.

    What we have is an anti-democratic, anti-republican, anti-national elite "expertism". Which naturally appeals to Jews--who don't feel "the people" are the same as themselves and can be trusted--and to other folks who believe they are the meritocratic "experts", and are given comfy sinecures, comfy lives for doing the bidding of the elites.

    What we've had is nothing less than a coup against the people.

    And this is the battle that we *must* win if we are to survive.

    , @Prof. Woland
    The left in America has always been frustrated by the fact that it is much harder to extract welfare with our form of government than in parts of Europe, where a simple majority can mean unrestricted feeding from the trough. This is why “populism” is such an existential threat. In most places like in the U.S. the phrase would traditionally mean a greater social welfare state and no restraints on personal behavior where in Sweden it now means the opposite.
    , @Jack D
    Our Founding Fathers were rightly suspicious of unlimited democracy, which indeed can be the tyranny of the majority over the minority. They therefore constructed a constitutional republic, where the excesses of democracy could be carefully counterbalanced by constitutional limits on the power of government and by offices that were not subject to direct election (one of those being the Presidency itself).

    Unfortunately, the original Constitutional framework is mostly in a shambles. In other countries it really never got going - the US is the country with the oldest written constitution that is still in effect. The French are on their 5th republic, which was established only in 1958. In most countries they change constitutions as often as they change hemlines - very often (as we see in China now) the constitution is a document that is tailored to the whims and political needs of whomever is in charge this week.
    , @Pericles

    The Swedish interpretation

     

    We wouldn't feel comfortable grabbing all the glory for how things turned out, so let's just call it Post-War Liberal (Western) Democracy.
  4. @Tim Howells
    The Swedish interpretation: Democracy is our most fundamental value, but it no longer means rule by and for the people. That would be Populism, which is pure evil and the great enemy of Democracy. Democracy means protecting "vulnerable" folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.

    Democracy, if too democratic, turns against minorities – that’s what we all call populism then = Democrazy gone astray.

    (As Sir Ralph Dahrendorf, head of the London School of Economics in the 80ies, remarked: The populist is always the other, especially if he is about to win an argument on a braod scale (=win over the populace…).

    PS
    Your comment is spot on!

  5. Mr. Kagan appears to patronize some very permissive buffets.

    • Replies: @Clyde

    Mr. Kagan appears to patronize some very permissive buffets.
     
    It is impossible to maintain a diet in DC. Too many free buffets thrown by lobbyists and various orgs. Once you get upper tier, become an influencer like Kagan you are flooded with invitations. DCers literally live off the fat of the land.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    Agree. He, JPod, and Bill Kristol definitely qualify as political Fat Cats.
    , @AnotherDad

    Mr. Kagan appears to patronize some very permissive buffets.
     
    Well at least know we know why all these African's are trying to get to Europe--someone took all their food!

    If Kagan would just "put down that fork!", African babies wouldn't go to bed hungary and Hungary wouldn't need that oppressive border fence. There would be enough for all.

    I can only surmsie that Kagan has intentionally been "working" personally to create a global food shortage and drive migrants across the Med and into Europe to ram diversity up its ass.
    , @Beckow
    Kagan is in the belly-over-the-belt phase, his thinking reflects that. They always overdo it.
    , @Seamus Padraig
    His wife is Vicky Nuland, so you can blame her legendary cookies.
    , @Pericles

    Mr. Kagan appears to patronize some very permissive buffets.

     

    I'd enjoy seeing him wrestle Harvey Weinstein for the last slab of brisket.
  6. @rogue-one
    I would like Mr. Kagan to also talk about illiberalism in Israel. We have been far too permissive with the rise of illiberalism in Israel. Mr. Prime Minster Netanyahu, the wall has to come down. Palestinians must be given equal rights as jews. Israel must become diverse. Diversity is our strength. And people like Naftali Bennett must be prosecuted for their anti-palestinian and anti-muslims remarks.

    You are ironic, aren’t you? (Great comment anyways).

  7. What exactly is the German Marshall Fund?
    It seems to be up to all sorts of nefarious activities, like funding Laura Rosenberger’s ‘Alliance for Securing Democracy’, which accuses everyone on Twitter of being Russian bots, and employing the particularly obnoxious Yascha Mounck.

    • Replies: @CCZ
    Can you spell GLOBALISTS? Below from Wiki and German Wiki:

    GMF was founded as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance through a grant from the West German government. It was founded by Guido Goldman, who was the director of Harvard's West European Studies program in the early 1970s. Goldman, an American whose family had fled Germany in 1940, lobbied the West German government for an endowment to promote European and U.S. relations on the 25th anniversary of Marshall Plan.

    Guido Goldman (born 1938 in Switzerland ) is an American political scientist .

    His father, Nachum Goldmann (1894-1982), co-founded the World Jewish Congress, chairman of the Jewish Agency and president of the World Zionist Organization.

    In 1940, Goldman fled to New York with his parents and younger brother. When he began his studies at Harvard in 1959, one of his teachers there was the later Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzeziński , and Henry Kissinger later supervised his PhD thesis (PhD 1969).

    The current president of GMF is Karen Donfried, who joined in April 2014. Donfried was previously special assistant to President Barack Obama.

  8. I like how he equates democracy with liberalism.

    This makes “democracy” in any society that is conservative to mean imposing decisions from the top, made by “experts” and unaccountable elites and justified by all sorts of presstitues and pseudo-intellectuals while opposing points of view are suppressed for hate speech.

    And any attempt to actually represent the people and give them what they want and what they voted for is “populism”, which is very bad (and probably a fascist ploy by Putler) and completely antithetical to Kagan’s “democracy”.

  9. Thought experiment:

    If one could save five illiberal EU countries by throwing the fat man under a trolley, what should one do?

    This could help if he’s uncooperative:

    • Replies: @Jack D
    I'm guessing that if and when we ever get around to building our border wall, this may not be popular with the drug smugglers, human traffickers, etc. whose livelihood depends on a porous border with Mexico and that therefore some of these folks might be tempted to throw rocks (or more) at our construction crews. Therefore we just might be calling on our Israeli friends to share their expertise in building armor plated bulldozers.
  10. How is this an issue? Sure, the word “democracy”—rule by the people—doesn’t explicitly specify which people is supposed to do the ruling, but it stands to reason that it can only be the one specifically chosen for the job by God xirself. In God we Trust!

    • Replies: @Kevin in Ohio
    I think you forgot the brackets around (((chosen))).
    , @TomSchmidt
    It doesn't mean "rule by the people." It means "rule by the Deme," one of the 10 or 12 tribes of Athens. Periodically power would rotate to a different deme. Socrates makes mention in The Apology about how he was the leader of his Deme when his Deme rotated into power, I think at the time of Alcibiades.

    So in a real sense, Kagan is correct. What you think of as democracy literally is populism, rule by ALL the people.
  11. @Tim Howells
    The Swedish interpretation: Democracy is our most fundamental value, but it no longer means rule by and for the people. That would be Populism, which is pure evil and the great enemy of Democracy. Democracy means protecting "vulnerable" folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.

    This is very well-stated; excellent comment.

  12. Until last January, five days after Trump’s inauguration, Mrs. Kagan (aka, Victoria Nuland, former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs) might have been in a position to do something about this. Like, for example, bringing to heel a certain European country that’s recently adopted by law an unacceptable view of its own history between 1939 and 1945.

    The purge of the neocons has really been remarkable and rapid. They still kvetch endlessly in their periodicals and think tanks, but with nobody really being able to say what they mean aloud, it doesn’t really break wide.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Trump's State Department is slashing the NED too, a key neocon powerbase and holding pen for 'talent'.
    , @Mr. Anon

    You’re not kidding about the avalanche of op-ed pieces about this, including the one by Noah Rothman that was highlighted by iSteve a couple of days ago. There seems to be some kind of effort at an intellectual counter-offensive going on, though no one seems to be able to pinpoint exactly what populism is.
     
    It's not like they've gone away or lost all, or even most, of their influence. John Bolton (old Evil Captain Kangaroo himself) is being talked about as a replacement for H.R. McMaster, who reportedly will be stepping down as National Security Adviser.
  13. Democracy….ya it doesn’t work.

    • Replies: @james wilson
    Democratic Republics work less horribly than other forms of government as long as women and scofflaws are not franchised.
  14. @DFH
    What exactly is the German Marshall Fund?
    It seems to be up to all sorts of nefarious activities, like funding Laura Rosenberger's 'Alliance for Securing Democracy', which accuses everyone on Twitter of being Russian bots, and employing the particularly obnoxious Yascha Mounck.

    Can you spell GLOBALISTS? Below from Wiki and German Wiki:

    GMF was founded as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance through a grant from the West German government. It was founded by Guido Goldman, who was the director of Harvard’s West European Studies program in the early 1970s. Goldman, an American whose family had fled Germany in 1940, lobbied the West German government for an endowment to promote European and U.S. relations on the 25th anniversary of Marshall Plan.

    Guido Goldman (born 1938 in Switzerland ) is an American political scientist .

    His father, Nachum Goldmann (1894-1982), co-founded the World Jewish Congress, chairman of the Jewish Agency and president of the World Zionist Organization.

    In 1940, Goldman fled to New York with his parents and younger brother. When he began his studies at Harvard in 1959, one of his teachers there was the later Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzeziński , and Henry Kissinger later supervised his PhD thesis (PhD 1969).

    The current president of GMF is Karen Donfried, who joined in April 2014. Donfried was previously special assistant to President Barack Obama.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Marshall Fund was a better choice than Goldman Fund, also implies some connection to the US government.

    Is it just me or does it feel we are entering the climatic stage of a life and death struggle, it certainly seems others see it that way?
  15. To be fair, he is talking about liberalism. For the liberal elites today, liberal values trump illiberal values. Kagan would like the EU to clamp down on Hungary, Poland, and other states who go against Soros “open societies” and liberalism.

    That said, last time Mr. Kagan wanted us to take Iraq seriously, we invaded Iraq creating ISIS. Does he truly want an European version of ISIS?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The only 'crimes' that Hungary and Poland have committed is being reluctant to turn into 'multiracial' (ie white minority by 2100) societies.

    That tell you all you need to know about the EU/Economist establishment.
  16. I would like Mr. Kagan to also talk about illiberalism in Israel. We have been far too permissive with the rise of illiberalism in Israel. Mr. Prime Minster Netanyahu, the wall has to come down. Palestinians must be given equal rights as jews. Israel must become diverse. Diversity is our strength. And people like Naftali Bennett must be prosecuted for their anti-palestinian and anti-muslims remarks.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    You are ironic, aren't you? (Great comment anyways).
  17. This is essentially how these people talk about regime-change countries. They claim it’s about tyranny, but the replacement is always as corrupt and tyrannical (And often moreso, often the replaced was either elected or had a more pluralistic power structure that excluded less of the population) but now he doesn’t have any of the crowd pleasing policies like standing up for the countries interests or objecting to certain foreign policies of countries that keep leaving smoking craters where once there was a functioning place.

    It’s amazing to see them so triggered that they’re openly talking about this vis-a-vis Western countries. Though the Kagans always seemed like high-functioning psychotics who couldn’t stand a lack of conflict, so maybe they can’t help themselves anymore.

    One of the biggest problems with democracies in the modern age is that politicians can be bought-off piece-meal easier than whole regimes and so are easier for foreign powers to dominate. (One of the reasons for why the more authoritarian Russia under Putin is a better deal for Russians than a total neoliberal democracy that would be controlled by Washington)

    This is what the mean by democracy, an entity which they have a veto over.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The actual Russian people, rather uniquely amongst national electorates, are wise enough to have an actual instinctive understanding about what the game is and what is at stake.

    The Yeltsin/Gorbachev years had a salutary effect.
    , @Jack D
    Neoconservative is a bad word and apparently neoliberal is a bad word too. Apparently neoliberals and neoconservatives both agree that we should Invade the World, so I'm not clear as to what the difference is between them, at least on foreign policy. Is there any kind of neo that is good, or is neo like populist - something that you want to tag your opponent with but will never admit to being yourself?
  18. @snorlax
    Mr. Kagan appears to patronize some very permissive buffets.

    Mr. Kagan appears to patronize some very permissive buffets.

    It is impossible to maintain a diet in DC. Too many free buffets thrown by lobbyists and various orgs. Once you get upper tier, become an influencer like Kagan you are flooded with invitations. DCers literally live off the fat of the land.

  19. @CCZ
    Can you spell GLOBALISTS? Below from Wiki and German Wiki:

    GMF was founded as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance through a grant from the West German government. It was founded by Guido Goldman, who was the director of Harvard's West European Studies program in the early 1970s. Goldman, an American whose family had fled Germany in 1940, lobbied the West German government for an endowment to promote European and U.S. relations on the 25th anniversary of Marshall Plan.

    Guido Goldman (born 1938 in Switzerland ) is an American political scientist .

    His father, Nachum Goldmann (1894-1982), co-founded the World Jewish Congress, chairman of the Jewish Agency and president of the World Zionist Organization.

    In 1940, Goldman fled to New York with his parents and younger brother. When he began his studies at Harvard in 1959, one of his teachers there was the later Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzeziński , and Henry Kissinger later supervised his PhD thesis (PhD 1969).

    The current president of GMF is Karen Donfried, who joined in April 2014. Donfried was previously special assistant to President Barack Obama.

    Marshall Fund was a better choice than Goldman Fund, also implies some connection to the US government.

    Is it just me or does it feel we are entering the climatic stage of a life and death struggle, it certainly seems others see it that way?

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    We're still in the "ballots" stage. Voters still think they can vote to change the government. And we're still prosperous enough to keep people away from "bullets."
    , @another fred
    Consider that it may be just a climax of population growth before a population collapse, and that life will still be life for people who survive with the same struggles going on. Doubtless, there will be technological wonders that will change the shape of the challenges and, hopefully, some lessons learned, but life will go on.

    The "life or death" meme is what has got people so overwrought. People talk about doom for the planet or humanity while it's really just population dynamics. People can't seem to get in their heads that natural laws apply to us.

  20. Maybe a better name for the fund would be the Morganthau Fund?

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    ‘We have been far too permissive with countries that have slipped away from democracy’.

    An extremely interesting statement to study and unpack. Firstly, who is or are the ‘we’ Kagan is talking about?
    Is it himself?,s fellow elitist bigwigs?, he entire European political class?,Theresa May?, Merkel, Macron? The EU Commission?, the UN?, the Council of Europe?, the OSCE?, Bilderberg?, Soros?
    Just Who?, and why does the personality of Robert Kagan feel empowered enough to act is their voice?

    Secondly, we are talking of the notion of supposedly ‘sovereign’ nations being bossed about from on high by – foreigners-. Of course, by all the time honored rules of international relations, the sovereign state is the supreme entity of government. There can be no higher authority, foreigners be damned, within the jurisdiction of a sovereign state than the legitimate government of a sovereign state. Attempts by foreigners to usurp the authority of sovereign governments are, by definition, ‘unfriendly acts’, or even ‘acts of hostility’. In fact there is only a very very thin line between such hostile acts and the actual declaration of war. All international wars start this way.

    Robert Kagan reminds me most of Adolf Hitler.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Don't get too carried away now. Many of the countries that have gone in a "populist" direction are also big EU (read German) aid recipients. We all know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It's pretty ballsy to poke your finger in the eyes of the guy who is supporting you financially (one name for the person who supports you financially is "boss"). The whole populist/nationalist shtick would be a lot more convincing if it was coming from countries that were really self supporting. Regardless of whether you think they are right or wrong, the whole thing has the air about it of a surly teenager who berates his parents and then 5 minutes later asks for them to give him a ride.

    People around her often (rightly) complain about who/whom on the left, but I get the feeling that in some topsy turvy universe where the situation was reversed (e.g. the Polish "populist" urge was to let in even more refugees and the EU was telling them to put on the brakes) that "populism" wouldn't be so popular around here. Ultimately what everyone want is for other folks to agree with their positions - there are no real principles of "democracy" attached to this
  22. Robert Kagan has got a substantial ‘beer gut’.

    • Replies: @CCZ
    Others agree with your thought, on GMF Twitter:

    “Looks like all you can eat buffets have been far too permissive to him.”

    “(((Democracy))): home of the $5 All You Can Eat Buffet.”

    “Hasn't he done well for himself? Still, smaller portions might not do any harm.”

    https://twitter.com/goyy_gibson/status/972151838622539776
  23. I tell my Chinese students that China should adopt Democracy and they look at me like I am crazy

  24. @rogue-one
    To be fair, he is talking about liberalism. For the liberal elites today, liberal values trump illiberal values. Kagan would like the EU to clamp down on Hungary, Poland, and other states who go against Soros "open societies" and liberalism.

    That said, last time Mr. Kagan wanted us to take Iraq seriously, we invaded Iraq creating ISIS. Does he truly want an European version of ISIS?

    The only ‘crimes’ that Hungary and Poland have committed is being reluctant to turn into ‘multiracial’ (ie white minority by 2100) societies.

    That tell you all you need to know about the EU/Economist establishment.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    The only ‘crimes’ that Hungary and Poland have committed is being reluctant to turn into ‘multiracial’ (ie white minority by 2100) societies.
     
    Exactly.

    And i'd like to see Trump--who was able to win precisely by tapping into nationalist sentiment--actually giving these folks at least rhetorical support.

    Heck just some straightforward, very clear, tweets:

    "We stand with the people of Poland and Hungary against thuggish EU/globalist bullying accepting illegal migrants."

    "The people of every nation have an inherent fundamental right to determine who--in any--immigrants they want to accept into their nation. We stand with the people of Poland and Hungary"

    He can skip his faggy military parade and at least sound like a nationalist.
  25. @Altai
    This is essentially how these people talk about regime-change countries. They claim it's about tyranny, but the replacement is always as corrupt and tyrannical (And often moreso, often the replaced was either elected or had a more pluralistic power structure that excluded less of the population) but now he doesn't have any of the crowd pleasing policies like standing up for the countries interests or objecting to certain foreign policies of countries that keep leaving smoking craters where once there was a functioning place.

    It's amazing to see them so triggered that they're openly talking about this vis-a-vis Western countries. Though the Kagans always seemed like high-functioning psychotics who couldn't stand a lack of conflict, so maybe they can't help themselves anymore.

    One of the biggest problems with democracies in the modern age is that politicians can be bought-off piece-meal easier than whole regimes and so are easier for foreign powers to dominate. (One of the reasons for why the more authoritarian Russia under Putin is a better deal for Russians than a total neoliberal democracy that would be controlled by Washington)

    This is what the mean by democracy, an entity which they have a veto over.

    The actual Russian people, rather uniquely amongst national electorates, are wise enough to have an actual instinctive understanding about what the game is and what is at stake.

    The Yeltsin/Gorbachev years had a salutary effect.

    • Replies: @Altai
    It's an interesting idea to think what would have happened in the Middle East by now if Russian had been fully neutered. (Another lesson that you should always destroy your enemies or treat them well in defeat, but never treat them horribly and leave them standing) The neocons really do want that war with Iran, a prospect so disastrous that even the hollowman Obama who signed off on Libya (Fun game, ask somebody what the stated justification for that war was again) did himself damage to stop it.

    If they finally decide to cross Syria off the list (I think enough damage has been dealt to it to neuter it, whether or not Assad is still there) there is only one country left on the famous neocon hit-list and they'll be able to put all their energy and capital to go after the last target.
  26. @Thomas
    Until last January, five days after Trump’s inauguration, Mrs. Kagan (aka, Victoria Nuland, former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs) might have been in a position to do something about this. Like, for example, bringing to heel a certain European country that’s recently adopted by law an unacceptable view of its own history between 1939 and 1945.

    The purge of the neocons has really been remarkable and rapid. They still kvetch endlessly in their periodicals and think tanks, but with nobody really being able to say what they mean aloud, it doesn’t really break wide.

    Trump’s State Department is slashing the NED too, a key neocon powerbase and holding pen for ‘talent’.

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    Don't know how that's possible. Both the NED and the NDI are funded and run by congress. They answer to the State Department--or anyone else in the executive branch.
  27. When the global elites say “freedom and democracy”, ‘freedom’ means opening your markets to rapine by foreign corporations, and ‘democracy’ means doing what Washington says.

  28. Mises and Popper defined democracy as a system, by which a big majority can get rid of a government by election if she can’t stand it any longer.
    And this ought to be the gold standard. Of course, countries like Russia or Poland are completely democratic from this point of view.

  29. @Tim Howells
    The Swedish interpretation: Democracy is our most fundamental value, but it no longer means rule by and for the people. That would be Populism, which is pure evil and the great enemy of Democracy. Democracy means protecting "vulnerable" folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.

    The Swedish interpretation: Democracy is our most fundamental value, but it no longer means rule by and for the people. That would be Populism, which is pure evil and the great enemy of Democracy. Democracy means protecting “vulnerable” folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.

    To paraphrase you and Mr. Sailer’s tweet, if a system elects a guy we like, then it is democracy, otherwise it is populism.

    You’re not kidding about the avalanche of op-ed pieces about this, including the one by Noah Rothman that was highlighted by iSteve a couple of days ago. There seems to be some kind of effort at an intellectual counter-offensive going on, though no one seems to be able to pinpoint exactly what populism is.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-populism-really-the-villain-here/2018/03/07/de923c24-224a-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.c65f0ee594c5

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-its-so-difficult-to-kill-a-populist-movement/2018/03/09/28e2a7d2-22e6-11e8-badd-7c9f29a55815_story.html?utm_term=.fccc255c80d2

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    You’re not kidding about the avalanche of op-ed pieces about this, including the one by Noah Rothman that was highlighted by iSteve a couple of days ago. There seems to be some kind of effort at an intellectual counter-offensive going on, though no one seems to be able to pinpoint exactly what populism is.
     
    It's almost as if it's a concerted effort. But of course, how could that be. That's just crazy talk.

    And, by the way, where are Art Deco and Tyrion 2 to assure us that these are just the disjointed ramblings of has-beens who have no influence? After all, who is Robert Kagan anyway, or his wife Victoria Nuland? Nobodies!
    , @Anonymous

    If a system elects a guy we like, then it is democracy, otherwise it is populism.
     
    This comment deserves enshrinement. It's clearly the Credo of Our Age.

    They're trying to redefine populism to equate it with fascism. They may yet succeed.
  30. @Tim Howells
    The Swedish interpretation: Democracy is our most fundamental value, but it no longer means rule by and for the people. That would be Populism, which is pure evil and the great enemy of Democracy. Democracy means protecting "vulnerable" folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.

    Democracy means protecting “vulnerable” folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.

    Plus imports more in. The more dysfunctional and incompatible the better as in Somalians and AIDS victims. Export “dirty” industry and manufacturing that provide male jobs, import in 3rd wordlers. Third wordlers who will work in the industries of the future such as meat packing and clean energy. Going forward of course.

  31. @Anonymous
    Robert Kagan has got a substantial 'beer gut'.

    Others agree with your thought, on GMF Twitter:

    “Looks like all you can eat buffets have been far too permissive to him.”

    “(((Democracy))): home of the $5 All You Can Eat Buffet.”

    “Hasn’t he done well for himself? Still, smaller portions might not do any harm.”

    https://twitter.com/goyy_gibson/status/972151838622539776

  32. Every time I say “regime change”, my wife, Victoria Nuland, feeds me a cookie.

    (hat tip to Eddo Brandes)

  33. I could be charitable and suggest he’s referring to abusive practices by certain governments (e.g. Russia’s or Hungary’s) and just being witlessly sloppy in his terminology (for which an academic political scientist hasn’t many excuses). Problem: Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, and Britain have a history of abuse of political dissidents supervised by courts or by administrative tribunals. A generation ago, you heard about this sort of thing happening in Singapore to a certain amount of tut-tutting, but not really anywhere else. A Belgian court ordered the dissolution of one of the country’s principal political parties and Dutch courts have had the country’s opposition leader in the docket, so it’s not functionally similar to proceedings contra the Communist Party in this country ca. 1955. Brigitte Bardot has been prosecuted five times for public remarks on social and political questions. Doesn’t bother Freedom House and it apparently doesn’t bother Robert Kagan. ‘European Values’ and all that.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    In today's UK people are regularly, summarily, thrown into jail - for periods up to *years* - for expressing forbidden words and thoughts - not incitement to murder, mind you - on Twitter.

    The very worst the offenders can be accused of is 'hurting feelings'.
    , @John Gruskos
    As you and your hero Robert Kagan both well know, the Hungarian government hasn't engaged in any abusive practices.

    Israel, on the other hand . . .
  34. Yanukovych was democratically elected ,five billion dollars out voted the people I guess.

  35. Is their no nation that Robert Kagan won’t gobble up?

    • LOL: The Anti-Gnostic
  36. Democracy is, and always has been, two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

    So is Democracy the bastard child of Communism, or Communism the bastard child of Democracy? And when counties “slip away” Democracy, what are they really slipping way from?

    Personally, I think it is refreshing that the Intellectual\chattering Class is making something perfectly clear:

    You vote until you get a result I like, and to hell with what you like.

    Now that is Democracy.

  37. “We’ve been far too permissive to countries that have slipped away from democracy.”

    Has he been in the US lately?

    See:
    http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2018/01/is-america-democracy-its-enemies-think.html

  38. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Democracy is Jewish rule. Why wouldn’t a big Jew wand more democracy?? With Jewish control of media and the Jew ability to influence voter opinion why wouldn’t Big Jew want more power and more wealth?? Democracy is not being promoted as something good for all, democracy is being promoted as something good for the Jews.

  39. @Tim Howells
    The Swedish interpretation: Democracy is our most fundamental value, but it no longer means rule by and for the people. That would be Populism, which is pure evil and the great enemy of Democracy. Democracy means protecting "vulnerable" folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.

    The Swedish interpretation: Democracy is our most fundamental value, but it no longer means rule by and for the people. That would be Populism, which is pure evil and the great enemy of Democracy. Democracy means protecting “vulnerable” folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.

    Mr. Howells, this is an excellent comment.

    This to me is one of the goals of the ideology of what i’ve tagged as “Jewish minoritarianism”–minorities good/majorites bad–a nation’s people don’t actually have the right to rule.

    And this isn’t just the “Swedish interpretation”. As i was poking at in the Commentary/Noah Rothman thread, in the last couple of generations during the rise of the Jews America–and especially it’s ideology–has become significantly less republican in character. The idea that we are free, self-reliant citizens and should manage our own affairs is practically non-existent in elite media. “Experts” the “people who know better” should be making decisions. (I was struck by a Seattle Times editorial maybe a dozen back on gay marriage, which basically said, “people should stop voting on this”, it’s time for this to be decided–i.e. instituted–by the courts. Right there in black in white in a major American paper, the people shouldn’t get to decide what sort of relationships get the peoples’ “we think this is great” stamp of approval.)

    And that’s what we have. The “experts” in the courts and the permanent bureaucracy make all the relevant decisions. As far as i can tell the only thing elected representatives are allowed to do–against the wishes of the elites–is fiddle a bit with tax rates. And if the people vote in something else (e.g. traditional marriage) or vote in someone who tries do something else (e.g. not issue visas to people from some muslim nations) even with clear constitutional and legal authority, the courts will question whether the motives are sufficiently pure–compliant with minoritarianism–and block on those grounds.

    What we have is an anti-democratic, anti-republican, anti-national elite “expertism”. Which naturally appeals to Jews–who don’t feel “the people” are the same as themselves and can be trusted–and to other folks who believe they are the meritocratic “experts”, and are given comfy sinecures, comfy lives for doing the bidding of the elites.

    What we’ve had is nothing less than a coup against the people.

    And this is the battle that we *must* win if we are to survive.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Loveofknowledge
    I'm starting to think that the sort of republican government you describe is only possible in a country that is culturally homogeneous to a certain extent.

    At the time of America's founding, you still had "elites" - the natural aristocracy that Thomas Jefferson talked about, of which he was a member.

    It was not necessarily majoritarian democracy - in fact the Founding Fathers didn't really believe in that. There wasn't universal suffrage either, voting could be restricted to those who owned property.

    However, and this is the key point: the system worked because the elites generally shared the sentiments of the people. After all, they practiced the same religion, spoke the same language, shared the same history and culture, etc.

    Surely in some cases the elites felt superior and could be greedy and selfish, etc. People and people. But having the cultural commonality with the masses generally gave the elites a sense of "noblesse oblige".

    In any case, the people probably generally felt as though their leaders represented them. When the ruling class is predominantly of a different ethnic group or religion or cultural outlook, it's a lot easier for them to exploit, push around, and not care about the masses. The masses end up feeling like they're being ruled by a foreign power ("internal colonization").

    I wonder if for all the Western criticism of China for having an authoritarian government, the Chinese people don't feel as subjugated as we might think - after all, they're being ruled by fellow Han Chinese who want what's good for the Chinese nation. Same with Putin's Russia.

    I'm not sure what the solution is other than breaking up the country along ethnic and religious lines. To the extent that the problem is excessive Jewish influence, maybe that could be reined in a little and it would help.

    But I think there has also been a sort of religious civil war going on among white people for a least the last 50 years, between traditional Christianity and secular liberalism. That's where you get the most intense disagreements, like over abortion and gay marriage.

    When a disagreement goes to a fundamental religious/philosophical difference like that, then it no longer becomes just a different opinion that people respect, that we can debate and vote on and let the majority decide. It becomes a war, where all is fair - lying, scheming, bringing in immigrants, do whatever we have to do to win, screw the way the political institutions like the judiciary are really supposed to work.

    I suppose Western civilization has had plenty of religious schisms over the centuries, and they eventually work themselves out. The key is to not give the country away to foreigners in the meantime.

    Maybe we need to acknowledge that we're in a civil war and just establish some "laws of war". In a literal war where both sides are trying to kill each other, they can still agree not to use chemical weapons, for example.

    I think Law of Religious Civil War #1 should be: you can't bring in millions of foreign mercenaries (i.e. immigrant voters) to help your side. That will be bad for all of us, even the liberals themselves in the long run.
    , @TomSchmidt
    It's been going on for a LOOONG time. The book De-managing America by Dick Cornuelle was published in the 60s. The experts in the elite hadn't thoroughly discredited themselves then. Now?

    I suspect Taleb's Skin in the Game will be a bestseller.
    , @Jack D
    Protection of religious and other minorities from the tyranny of the majority and the idea that humans have inalienable and constitutionally protected rights that cannot just be legislated away because 50% plus 1 of the people support such legislation was not invented by the Joos but by our Founding Fathers (based on the precedents of common law and upon the works of non-Joo philosophers like Locke. In fact they were so concerned about this that the immediately enshrined these protections in a Bill of Rights that was made a part of our Constitution.

    If a majority of the people want to take away, say, your gun rights, do you "trust the people" in that case or is that somehow different?

  40. We started the 21st century with an insanely bad run of presidential foreign policy – the warmonger neocons that ran W’s foreign policy and the supine ‘show them our belly’ dogs of Obama’s (unless it’s a defenseless N African dictator, then we’ll bomb him out of existence). Both managed to erode our strategic position in the world while adding trillions to the national debt. They both rank as the worst presidents of at least the last 80 years. It’s hard to believe any foreign policy hand associated with either president is still taken seriously.

  41. This looks like the best place to post this so you’ll notice it. I’ll hit you up twitter too.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-018-9310-x/fulltext.html

    I’d be interested in your thoughts on the subject.

  42. “We” need to clamp down on globalists who reject a nation’s people’s right to rule themselves, have borders and preserve themselves–and their race and culture.

  43. Kaganocracy, or the Chosen People’s democratic dictatorship, is the more advanced and enlightened form of leading democracy proponent Mao Zedong’s doctrine of the People’s democratic dictatorship, and is related closely to the Prophet of Democracy Joseph Smith’s doctrine of Theodemocracy, of which the Prophet teaches us, “Never do another day’s work, nor spend another dollar, to build up a Gentile city or nation.”

  44. @snorlax
    Mr. Kagan appears to patronize some very permissive buffets.

    Agree. He, JPod, and Bill Kristol definitely qualify as political Fat Cats.

  45. @snorlax
    Mr. Kagan appears to patronize some very permissive buffets.

    Mr. Kagan appears to patronize some very permissive buffets.

    Well at least know we know why all these African’s are trying to get to Europe–someone took all their food!

    If Kagan would just “put down that fork!”, African babies wouldn’t go to bed hungary and Hungary wouldn’t need that oppressive border fence. There would be enough for all.

    I can only surmsie that Kagan has intentionally been “working” personally to create a global food shortage and drive migrants across the Med and into Europe to ram diversity up its ass.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    AD, saw some footage last week of Africans celebrating the Canonization of an African martyr. I was amazed at how obese the majority of the women were. Those long flowing robes can't hide an elephant sized butt.
  46. @U. Ranus
    How is this an issue? Sure, the word "democracy"—rule by the people—doesn't explicitly specify which people is supposed to do the ruling, but it stands to reason that it can only be the one specifically chosen for the job by God xirself. In God we Trust!

    I think you forgot the brackets around (((chosen))).

  47. @Anonymous
    The actual Russian people, rather uniquely amongst national electorates, are wise enough to have an actual instinctive understanding about what the game is and what is at stake.

    The Yeltsin/Gorbachev years had a salutary effect.

    It’s an interesting idea to think what would have happened in the Middle East by now if Russian had been fully neutered. (Another lesson that you should always destroy your enemies or treat them well in defeat, but never treat them horribly and leave them standing) The neocons really do want that war with Iran, a prospect so disastrous that even the hollowman Obama who signed off on Libya (Fun game, ask somebody what the stated justification for that war was again) did himself damage to stop it.

    If they finally decide to cross Syria off the list (I think enough damage has been dealt to it to neuter it, whether or not Assad is still there) there is only one country left on the famous neocon hit-list and they’ll be able to put all their energy and capital to go after the last target.

  48. @LondonBob
    Marshall Fund was a better choice than Goldman Fund, also implies some connection to the US government.

    Is it just me or does it feel we are entering the climatic stage of a life and death struggle, it certainly seems others see it that way?

    We’re still in the “ballots” stage. Voters still think they can vote to change the government. And we’re still prosperous enough to keep people away from “bullets.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    'Never mind The Ballots - here's The Economist'.
  49. Democracy means keeping the borders open until the People get it right.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    ...or the 'right' people get in.
    , @Anonymous

    Democracy means keeping the borders open until the People get it right.
     
    Another good one. Very good in fact. And oddly enough, once the borders have been open long enough, we'll find that they're open forever. The entire world can then become a third-world hellhole, presided over by a tiny, self-styled 'elite' while all the other 'tribes' fight over scraps.
  50. With a name like “Kagan” the white nationalist anti-semites will no doubt try to turn this discussion into anti-Semite talking points. If you see this, report it to the authorities.

  51. @AnotherDad

    The Swedish interpretation: Democracy is our most fundamental value, but it no longer means rule by and for the people. That would be Populism, which is pure evil and the great enemy of Democracy. Democracy means protecting “vulnerable” folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.
     
    Mr. Howells, this is an excellent comment.

    This to me is one of the goals of the ideology of what i've tagged as "Jewish minoritarianism"--minorities good/majorites bad--a nation's people don't actually have the right to rule.

    And this isn't just the "Swedish interpretation". As i was poking at in the Commentary/Noah Rothman thread, in the last couple of generations during the rise of the Jews America--and especially it's ideology--has become significantly less republican in character. The idea that we are free, self-reliant citizens and should manage our own affairs is practically non-existent in elite media. "Experts" the "people who know better" should be making decisions. (I was struck by a Seattle Times editorial maybe a dozen back on gay marriage, which basically said, "people should stop voting on this", it's time for this to be decided--i.e. instituted--by the courts. Right there in black in white in a major American paper, the people shouldn't get to decide what sort of relationships get the peoples' "we think this is great" stamp of approval.)

    And that's what we have. The "experts" in the courts and the permanent bureaucracy make all the relevant decisions. As far as i can tell the only thing elected representatives are allowed to do--against the wishes of the elites--is fiddle a bit with tax rates. And if the people vote in something else (e.g. traditional marriage) or vote in someone who tries do something else (e.g. not issue visas to people from some muslim nations) even with clear constitutional and legal authority, the courts will question whether the motives are sufficiently pure--compliant with minoritarianism--and block on those grounds.

    What we have is an anti-democratic, anti-republican, anti-national elite "expertism". Which naturally appeals to Jews--who don't feel "the people" are the same as themselves and can be trusted--and to other folks who believe they are the meritocratic "experts", and are given comfy sinecures, comfy lives for doing the bidding of the elites.

    What we've had is nothing less than a coup against the people.

    And this is the battle that we *must* win if we are to survive.

    I’m starting to think that the sort of republican government you describe is only possible in a country that is culturally homogeneous to a certain extent.

    At the time of America’s founding, you still had “elites” – the natural aristocracy that Thomas Jefferson talked about, of which he was a member.

    It was not necessarily majoritarian democracy – in fact the Founding Fathers didn’t really believe in that. There wasn’t universal suffrage either, voting could be restricted to those who owned property.

    However, and this is the key point: the system worked because the elites generally shared the sentiments of the people. After all, they practiced the same religion, spoke the same language, shared the same history and culture, etc.

    Surely in some cases the elites felt superior and could be greedy and selfish, etc. People and people. But having the cultural commonality with the masses generally gave the elites a sense of “noblesse oblige”.

    In any case, the people probably generally felt as though their leaders represented them. When the ruling class is predominantly of a different ethnic group or religion or cultural outlook, it’s a lot easier for them to exploit, push around, and not care about the masses. The masses end up feeling like they’re being ruled by a foreign power (“internal colonization”).

    I wonder if for all the Western criticism of China for having an authoritarian government, the Chinese people don’t feel as subjugated as we might think – after all, they’re being ruled by fellow Han Chinese who want what’s good for the Chinese nation. Same with Putin’s Russia.

    I’m not sure what the solution is other than breaking up the country along ethnic and religious lines. To the extent that the problem is excessive Jewish influence, maybe that could be reined in a little and it would help.

    But I think there has also been a sort of religious civil war going on among white people for a least the last 50 years, between traditional Christianity and secular liberalism. That’s where you get the most intense disagreements, like over abortion and gay marriage.

    When a disagreement goes to a fundamental religious/philosophical difference like that, then it no longer becomes just a different opinion that people respect, that we can debate and vote on and let the majority decide. It becomes a war, where all is fair – lying, scheming, bringing in immigrants, do whatever we have to do to win, screw the way the political institutions like the judiciary are really supposed to work.

    I suppose Western civilization has had plenty of religious schisms over the centuries, and they eventually work themselves out. The key is to not give the country away to foreigners in the meantime.

    Maybe we need to acknowledge that we’re in a civil war and just establish some “laws of war”. In a literal war where both sides are trying to kill each other, they can still agree not to use chemical weapons, for example.

    I think Law of Religious Civil War #1 should be: you can’t bring in millions of foreign mercenaries (i.e. immigrant voters) to help your side. That will be bad for all of us, even the liberals themselves in the long run.

    • Replies: @CCZ
    Slightly OT, but somewhat related, as Gomer would have said, “Surprise, Surprise!!”

    Putin is getting slammed for saying Jews might have interfered in the US election.

    President Vladimir Putin of Russia elicited sharp blow-back when he claimed that even though individuals with Russian citizenship may have worked to interfere in the 2016 US elections, they may not actually have been Russian because of their Jewish faith.

    Putin made the remarks during a long interview with NBC News host Megyn Kelly that aired on Saturday. Putin claimed that even though the individuals could have had Russian citizenship, they might not have been Russian after all.

    "Maybe they're not even Russians," Putin said. "Maybe they're Ukrainian, Tatars, Jews — just with Russian citizenship."

    "President Putin bizarrely has resorted to the blame game by pointing the finger at Jews and other minorities in his country," Anti-Defamation League chief executive Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement. "It is deeply disturbing to see the Russian president giving new life to classic anti-Semitic stereotypes that have plagued his country for hundreds of years.

    Business Insider, March 11, 2018
     
    And he didn't even mention AIPAC!!
  52. The ideas put forward by our soft totalitarian elites look increasingly hard totalitarian.

  53. Meanwhile, review of European Counter-Ghetto Initatives:

    Foreign language ban, army presence, de-Islamization: 5 most radical anti-ghetto plans in Europe

    Denmark: Tougher sentences & benefits reductions (2018) (Denmark’s sixth anti-ghetto drive since 1994) – In the works, but (evidently) problematic because it violates the principle of non-discriminatory justice.

    Sweden: Sending in the troops (2018) – Caused outrage, immediately shelved. Police will get more money instead.

    Germany: Making immigrants speak local language (2014) – Caused outrage and ridicule, immediately shelved. Then Merkel’s Boner occurs.

    France: Sarkozy’s ghetto Marshall Plan (2007) – Died a long and slow death due to neglect and disinterest (it’s really like it was just empty talk).

    Netherlands: De-Islamization (2017) – Shelved because Geert Wilders didn’t get enough votes.

    Keep your plastic democracy avatars in your purse.

  54. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Democracy means keeping the borders open until the People get it right.

    …or the ‘right’ people get in.

  55. @Art Deco
    I could be charitable and suggest he's referring to abusive practices by certain governments (e.g. Russia's or Hungary's) and just being witlessly sloppy in his terminology (for which an academic political scientist hasn't many excuses). Problem: Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, and Britain have a history of abuse of political dissidents supervised by courts or by administrative tribunals. A generation ago, you heard about this sort of thing happening in Singapore to a certain amount of tut-tutting, but not really anywhere else. A Belgian court ordered the dissolution of one of the country's principal political parties and Dutch courts have had the country's opposition leader in the docket, so it's not functionally similar to proceedings contra the Communist Party in this country ca. 1955. Brigitte Bardot has been prosecuted five times for public remarks on social and political questions. Doesn't bother Freedom House and it apparently doesn't bother Robert Kagan. 'European Values' and all that.

    In today’s UK people are regularly, summarily, thrown into jail – for periods up to *years* – for expressing forbidden words and thoughts – not incitement to murder, mind you – on Twitter.

    The very worst the offenders can be accused of is ‘hurting feelings’.

  56. @Tim Howells
    The Swedish interpretation: Democracy is our most fundamental value, but it no longer means rule by and for the people. That would be Populism, which is pure evil and the great enemy of Democracy. Democracy means protecting "vulnerable" folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.

    The left in America has always been frustrated by the fact that it is much harder to extract welfare with our form of government than in parts of Europe, where a simple majority can mean unrestricted feeding from the trough. This is why “populism” is such an existential threat. In most places like in the U.S. the phrase would traditionally mean a greater social welfare state and no restraints on personal behavior where in Sweden it now means the opposite.

  57. @G Pinfold
    He’s right. Democracy must be given by suppository if necessary: We sure showed that khudaffi.

    Spot on. Thanks for the lulz! I needed that.

  58. @AnotherDad

    The Swedish interpretation: Democracy is our most fundamental value, but it no longer means rule by and for the people. That would be Populism, which is pure evil and the great enemy of Democracy. Democracy means protecting “vulnerable” folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.
     
    Mr. Howells, this is an excellent comment.

    This to me is one of the goals of the ideology of what i've tagged as "Jewish minoritarianism"--minorities good/majorites bad--a nation's people don't actually have the right to rule.

    And this isn't just the "Swedish interpretation". As i was poking at in the Commentary/Noah Rothman thread, in the last couple of generations during the rise of the Jews America--and especially it's ideology--has become significantly less republican in character. The idea that we are free, self-reliant citizens and should manage our own affairs is practically non-existent in elite media. "Experts" the "people who know better" should be making decisions. (I was struck by a Seattle Times editorial maybe a dozen back on gay marriage, which basically said, "people should stop voting on this", it's time for this to be decided--i.e. instituted--by the courts. Right there in black in white in a major American paper, the people shouldn't get to decide what sort of relationships get the peoples' "we think this is great" stamp of approval.)

    And that's what we have. The "experts" in the courts and the permanent bureaucracy make all the relevant decisions. As far as i can tell the only thing elected representatives are allowed to do--against the wishes of the elites--is fiddle a bit with tax rates. And if the people vote in something else (e.g. traditional marriage) or vote in someone who tries do something else (e.g. not issue visas to people from some muslim nations) even with clear constitutional and legal authority, the courts will question whether the motives are sufficiently pure--compliant with minoritarianism--and block on those grounds.

    What we have is an anti-democratic, anti-republican, anti-national elite "expertism". Which naturally appeals to Jews--who don't feel "the people" are the same as themselves and can be trusted--and to other folks who believe they are the meritocratic "experts", and are given comfy sinecures, comfy lives for doing the bidding of the elites.

    What we've had is nothing less than a coup against the people.

    And this is the battle that we *must* win if we are to survive.

    It’s been going on for a LOOONG time. The book De-managing America by Dick Cornuelle was published in the 60s. The experts in the elite hadn’t thoroughly discredited themselves then. Now?

    I suspect Taleb’s Skin in the Game will be a bestseller.

  59. @U. Ranus
    How is this an issue? Sure, the word "democracy"—rule by the people—doesn't explicitly specify which people is supposed to do the ruling, but it stands to reason that it can only be the one specifically chosen for the job by God xirself. In God we Trust!

    It doesn’t mean “rule by the people.” It means “rule by the Deme,” one of the 10 or 12 tribes of Athens. Periodically power would rotate to a different deme. Socrates makes mention in The Apology about how he was the leader of his Deme when his Deme rotated into power, I think at the time of Alcibiades.

    So in a real sense, Kagan is correct. What you think of as democracy literally is populism, rule by ALL the people.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    Duh? Wuh?

    I have never heard of this new model etymology, nor about a rotating power structure.

    Any sources besides "olinrevelation.org"?

    After all, it is "demo-kratia" not "demes-kratia" (whereby it must be said that the "demos" are definitely not "everyone" but the ones which are free and have the land/money/status that goes with it)

  60. Whatever you do, don’t call him a globalist — please, anything but that.

  61. (((Robert Kagan))) just “laid everything out on the table.” What will the European male do and say in response to this?

    Steve Bannon made this interesting comment in France: https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/t/let-them-call-you-racist-wear-it-as-badge-of-honor-bannon-tells-french-far-right/vi-BBK5fB5

    Blacks/Asians/Muslims/Jews do not belong in Europe. Queen Isabella of Spain came up with a plan and carried it out in 1492. It is time to revive this plan.

  62. @Tim Howells
    The Swedish interpretation: Democracy is our most fundamental value, but it no longer means rule by and for the people. That would be Populism, which is pure evil and the great enemy of Democracy. Democracy means protecting "vulnerable" folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.

    Our Founding Fathers were rightly suspicious of unlimited democracy, which indeed can be the tyranny of the majority over the minority. They therefore constructed a constitutional republic, where the excesses of democracy could be carefully counterbalanced by constitutional limits on the power of government and by offices that were not subject to direct election (one of those being the Presidency itself).

    Unfortunately, the original Constitutional framework is mostly in a shambles. In other countries it really never got going – the US is the country with the oldest written constitution that is still in effect. The French are on their 5th republic, which was established only in 1958. In most countries they change constitutions as often as they change hemlines – very often (as we see in China now) the constitution is a document that is tailored to the whims and political needs of whomever is in charge this week.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yes, but that Constitution did nothing whatsoever to 'defend' the 'minority rights' of Amerindians, whose ancestral home lands were very quickly over run by white Americans immediately after the revolution.
    Ironically, a major casus belli for the Revolutionary War was the British Crown's downright refusal to contemplate further white settlement beyond the Appalachias. Strangely enough, King George made it his personal pledge to leave the Amerindians as undisputed occupiers of the American west.
  63. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Thought experiment:

    If one could save five illiberal EU countries by throwing the fat man under a trolley, what should one do?

    This could help if he’s uncooperative:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/D9-models008.jpg/1920px-D9-models008.jpg

    I’m guessing that if and when we ever get around to building our border wall, this may not be popular with the drug smugglers, human traffickers, etc. whose livelihood depends on a porous border with Mexico and that therefore some of these folks might be tempted to throw rocks (or more) at our construction crews. Therefore we just might be calling on our Israeli friends to share their expertise in building armor plated bulldozers.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yes, but you also know we'll never, ever be permitted the sort of security Israel enjoys against invaders, and this secretly pleases you. Or ... not-so-secretly...
  64. @Altai
    This is essentially how these people talk about regime-change countries. They claim it's about tyranny, but the replacement is always as corrupt and tyrannical (And often moreso, often the replaced was either elected or had a more pluralistic power structure that excluded less of the population) but now he doesn't have any of the crowd pleasing policies like standing up for the countries interests or objecting to certain foreign policies of countries that keep leaving smoking craters where once there was a functioning place.

    It's amazing to see them so triggered that they're openly talking about this vis-a-vis Western countries. Though the Kagans always seemed like high-functioning psychotics who couldn't stand a lack of conflict, so maybe they can't help themselves anymore.

    One of the biggest problems with democracies in the modern age is that politicians can be bought-off piece-meal easier than whole regimes and so are easier for foreign powers to dominate. (One of the reasons for why the more authoritarian Russia under Putin is a better deal for Russians than a total neoliberal democracy that would be controlled by Washington)

    This is what the mean by democracy, an entity which they have a veto over.

    Neoconservative is a bad word and apparently neoliberal is a bad word too. Apparently neoliberals and neoconservatives both agree that we should Invade the World, so I’m not clear as to what the difference is between them, at least on foreign policy. Is there any kind of neo that is good, or is neo like populist – something that you want to tag your opponent with but will never admit to being yourself?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I think NL is a way more established term for it across the pond (where the Nixon-era usage of "neoconservative" would have confusing connotations). Rhetorically the Eurotrash were boxed in by calling Reagan a Hitler despite essentially following his lead so the "neoliberal" label came up via the reds, who were simultaneously calling apostate ex-commies "neoconservative." Both are meant to be pejoratives, basically. There's no need for the "neo" in NL which seems to me to be just plain liberalism, Manchester Free Trade, Woodrow Wilson etc. etc... except by adding that prefix it necessarily refers to a post-war U.S.-hegemonic version of same
  65. @snorlax
    Mr. Kagan appears to patronize some very permissive buffets.

    Kagan is in the belly-over-the-belt phase, his thinking reflects that. They always overdo it.

  66. @snorlax
    Mr. Kagan appears to patronize some very permissive buffets.

    His wife is Vicky Nuland, so you can blame her legendary cookies.

  67. @AnotherDad

    Mr. Kagan appears to patronize some very permissive buffets.
     
    Well at least know we know why all these African's are trying to get to Europe--someone took all their food!

    If Kagan would just "put down that fork!", African babies wouldn't go to bed hungary and Hungary wouldn't need that oppressive border fence. There would be enough for all.

    I can only surmsie that Kagan has intentionally been "working" personally to create a global food shortage and drive migrants across the Med and into Europe to ram diversity up its ass.

    AD, saw some footage last week of Africans celebrating the Canonization of an African martyr. I was amazed at how obese the majority of the women were. Those long flowing robes can’t hide an elephant sized butt.

    • Replies: @riches
    "elephant butt"

    There's a name for that physical state, steatopygia.
  68. @Anonymous
    'We have been far too permissive with countries that have slipped away from democracy'.


    An extremely interesting statement to study and unpack. Firstly, who is or are the 'we' Kagan is talking about?
    Is it himself?,s fellow elitist bigwigs?, he entire European political class?,Theresa May?, Merkel, Macron? The EU Commission?, the UN?, the Council of Europe?, the OSCE?, Bilderberg?, Soros?
    Just Who?, and why does the personality of Robert Kagan feel empowered enough to act is their voice?

    Secondly, we are talking of the notion of supposedly 'sovereign' nations being bossed about from on high by - foreigners-. Of course, by all the time honored rules of international relations, the sovereign state is the supreme entity of government. There can be no higher authority, foreigners be damned, within the jurisdiction of a sovereign state than the legitimate government of a sovereign state. Attempts by foreigners to usurp the authority of sovereign governments are, by definition, 'unfriendly acts', or even 'acts of hostility'. In fact there is only a very very thin line between such hostile acts and the actual declaration of war. All international wars start this way.

    Robert Kagan reminds me most of Adolf Hitler.

    Don’t get too carried away now. Many of the countries that have gone in a “populist” direction are also big EU (read German) aid recipients. We all know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It’s pretty ballsy to poke your finger in the eyes of the guy who is supporting you financially (one name for the person who supports you financially is “boss”). The whole populist/nationalist shtick would be a lot more convincing if it was coming from countries that were really self supporting. Regardless of whether you think they are right or wrong, the whole thing has the air about it of a surly teenager who berates his parents and then 5 minutes later asks for them to give him a ride.

    People around her often (rightly) complain about who/whom on the left, but I get the feeling that in some topsy turvy universe where the situation was reversed (e.g. the Polish “populist” urge was to let in even more refugees and the EU was telling them to put on the brakes) that “populism” wouldn’t be so popular around here. Ultimately what everyone want is for other folks to agree with their positions – there are no real principles of “democracy” attached to this

    • Replies: @Felix...

    Don’t get too carried away now. Many of the countries that have gone in a “populist” direction are also big EU (read German) aid recipients. We all know that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
     
    Do you know how it came to be that German entities own virtually the entire Polish financial system and large swathes of every other industry as well? Are you aware of the negotiation process that led to Poland's accession to the EU, and the vast changes Poland had to make to many aspects of government, society, and economy to suit the tastes of Western elites and qualify for membership and the resultant aid? It doesn't seem that you are aware, so let me tell you that there was indeed no "free lunch."

    You know what else there wasn't during the aforementioned negotiations? There wasn't any mention of Poland having to accept demographic destruction at the whim of whoever pulls Angela Merkel's strings. Immigration policy for non-EU citizens is firmly ascribed to national governments under EU organizational covenants, and EU aid is not contingent on Poland agreeing to take in an arbitrary number of Africans whenever Angela Merkel tells it to. Withdrawing contractually obligated regional funds due to a factor like third world immigration that isn't part of the contract is unequivocally illegal.

    If the EU does this, Poland should respond by nationalizing German investments in the country and cozying up to Russia and China. It's only a matter of time before it will have to do the latter anyway, since the demographic transition underway in the US and Western Europe will transform them into forces of out and out white-genocide soon enough. There is no future for Eastern Europe in the rapidly browning "West," particularly since the browning will not stymie the hatred bloodthirsty lunatics like Robert Kagan have for Eastern Europeans, but unleash it.

    , @AnotherDad

    It’s pretty ballsy to poke your finger in the eyes of the guy who is supporting you financially (one name for the person who supports you financially is “boss”). The whole populist/nationalist shtick would be a lot more convincing if it was coming from countries that were really self supporting.
     
    Agreed.

    However this populism isn't about say beer regulation or even tariffs. "Oh, you take our money and then try to keep out our Mercedes."

    No, here it's the "boss" telling the "surly teenagers" he expects them to drink Draino--literately commit national suicide. Do you think "the boss" has such a right? No, of course not.

    In this case the surly teenager is completely right and entitled to be surly and the boss is full of crap.
    , @reiner Tor
    The Eastern Central European countries sold their industries to the Westerners for peanuts and opened up their markets to them in exchange for promises of integration, including similar aid as then poor EU members received from the then richest ones.

    The EU is a complex deal, and you cannot just pick out one part of it showing that it supposedly favors some countries over others. In any event, the subsidies will probably be substantially cut after 2020.
    , @istevefan

    Many of the countries that have gone in a “populist” direction are also big EU (read German) aid recipients.
     
    Couldn't you say something similar about Israel? She builds walls , deports migrants all while being a big recipient of US and German aid. But that doesn't give the US or Germany the right to tell Israel how to behave. As people have repeatedly pointed out the US doesn't have to give Israel aid. And apparently we only do it as corporate welfare for Lockheed and Boeing.

    Well Germany and the rest of the EU don't have to give aid to Poland or Hungary either. And as people have pointed out the aid given to the east is probably a form of corporate welfare for German banks and companies anyway.

    If the EU and Germany are unhappy with the eastern nations, then kick them out and stop giving them aid. The fact that they don't, and constantly obsess over the internal politics of those nations tells us that actual control of those nations is the goal. The aid money is just bait to take control of those nations. If I were the Visegrad contries, I'd call their bluff.
    , @John Gruskos
    If the Germans want to give away money, I'd much rather see Poland and Hungary be the recipients than Israel or 3rd world immigrants.

    But if German money comes with strings attached, then why aren't they pressuring Israel to have open borders and equal rights for Palestinians, and abolish all the illiberal nationalist and religious aspects of the Israeli state?
    , @Anonymous
    As Enoch Powell said 'Most people don't really understand what kind of animal the EU is'.

    For certain, the eastern bloc nations never knew that signing up to the EU would mean compulsory massive black/brown immigration.
    I'm sure if they knew that was the price they would have never have joined in the first place.
    , @ben tillman

    People around her often (rightly) complain about who/whom on the left, but I get the feeling that in some topsy turvy universe where the situation was reversed (e.g. the Polish “populist” urge was to let in even more refugees and the EU was telling them to put on the brakes) that “populism” wouldn’t be so popular around here.
     
    Such a thing cannot be a "populist urge".
  69. @AnotherDad

    The Swedish interpretation: Democracy is our most fundamental value, but it no longer means rule by and for the people. That would be Populism, which is pure evil and the great enemy of Democracy. Democracy means protecting “vulnerable” folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.
     
    Mr. Howells, this is an excellent comment.

    This to me is one of the goals of the ideology of what i've tagged as "Jewish minoritarianism"--minorities good/majorites bad--a nation's people don't actually have the right to rule.

    And this isn't just the "Swedish interpretation". As i was poking at in the Commentary/Noah Rothman thread, in the last couple of generations during the rise of the Jews America--and especially it's ideology--has become significantly less republican in character. The idea that we are free, self-reliant citizens and should manage our own affairs is practically non-existent in elite media. "Experts" the "people who know better" should be making decisions. (I was struck by a Seattle Times editorial maybe a dozen back on gay marriage, which basically said, "people should stop voting on this", it's time for this to be decided--i.e. instituted--by the courts. Right there in black in white in a major American paper, the people shouldn't get to decide what sort of relationships get the peoples' "we think this is great" stamp of approval.)

    And that's what we have. The "experts" in the courts and the permanent bureaucracy make all the relevant decisions. As far as i can tell the only thing elected representatives are allowed to do--against the wishes of the elites--is fiddle a bit with tax rates. And if the people vote in something else (e.g. traditional marriage) or vote in someone who tries do something else (e.g. not issue visas to people from some muslim nations) even with clear constitutional and legal authority, the courts will question whether the motives are sufficiently pure--compliant with minoritarianism--and block on those grounds.

    What we have is an anti-democratic, anti-republican, anti-national elite "expertism". Which naturally appeals to Jews--who don't feel "the people" are the same as themselves and can be trusted--and to other folks who believe they are the meritocratic "experts", and are given comfy sinecures, comfy lives for doing the bidding of the elites.

    What we've had is nothing less than a coup against the people.

    And this is the battle that we *must* win if we are to survive.

    Protection of religious and other minorities from the tyranny of the majority and the idea that humans have inalienable and constitutionally protected rights that cannot just be legislated away because 50% plus 1 of the people support such legislation was not invented by the Joos but by our Founding Fathers (based on the precedents of common law and upon the works of non-Joo philosophers like Locke. In fact they were so concerned about this that the immediately enshrined these protections in a Bill of Rights that was made a part of our Constitution.

    If a majority of the people want to take away, say, your gun rights, do you “trust the people” in that case or is that somehow different?

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    But what happens when a minority wants to take your rights away? That's the point at issue here. It's the majority in this case which is being victimized, not the minority.
    , @istevefan

    If a majority of the people want to take away, say, your gun rights, do you “trust the people” in that case or is that somehow different?
     
    It all depends on what is a majority. Given that gun rights are specifically recorded in the Constitution a simple 50+1 majority would not suffice to revoke them. However, the Founders did provide for a way to change the Constitution. If you can get 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress to propose something and 3/4 of all the states legislatures to approve it, then you could.

    In theory the protections of religious and other minorities that you write about could be abolished by such a procedure just as easily as gun rights. At the end of the day pretty much anything we take as a right could be abolished if it was done via the Constitutional Amendment process.

    Of course it wasn't exactly easy to meet the 2/3rds threshold in Congress and 3/4 states approval back when we were relatively homogeneous. It is probably impossible today. But the point is even the Founders provided a way for a majority (super) to make such changes.
  70. @LondonBob
    Trump's State Department is slashing the NED too, a key neocon powerbase and holding pen for 'talent'.

    Don’t know how that’s possible. Both the NED and the NDI are funded and run by congress. They answer to the State Department–or anyone else in the executive branch.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Congress has to approve the budget cut as part of the State Department budget, which might be problematic.
  71. @Jack D
    Protection of religious and other minorities from the tyranny of the majority and the idea that humans have inalienable and constitutionally protected rights that cannot just be legislated away because 50% plus 1 of the people support such legislation was not invented by the Joos but by our Founding Fathers (based on the precedents of common law and upon the works of non-Joo philosophers like Locke. In fact they were so concerned about this that the immediately enshrined these protections in a Bill of Rights that was made a part of our Constitution.

    If a majority of the people want to take away, say, your gun rights, do you "trust the people" in that case or is that somehow different?

    But what happens when a minority wants to take your rights away? That’s the point at issue here. It’s the majority in this case which is being victimized, not the minority.

  72. @Tim Howells
    The Swedish interpretation: Democracy is our most fundamental value, but it no longer means rule by and for the people. That would be Populism, which is pure evil and the great enemy of Democracy. Democracy means protecting "vulnerable" folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.

    The Swedish interpretation

    We wouldn’t feel comfortable grabbing all the glory for how things turned out, so let’s just call it Post-War Liberal (Western) Democracy.

  73. @snorlax
    Mr. Kagan appears to patronize some very permissive buffets.

    Mr. Kagan appears to patronize some very permissive buffets.

    I’d enjoy seeing him wrestle Harvey Weinstein for the last slab of brisket.

  74. @Jack D
    Don't get too carried away now. Many of the countries that have gone in a "populist" direction are also big EU (read German) aid recipients. We all know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It's pretty ballsy to poke your finger in the eyes of the guy who is supporting you financially (one name for the person who supports you financially is "boss"). The whole populist/nationalist shtick would be a lot more convincing if it was coming from countries that were really self supporting. Regardless of whether you think they are right or wrong, the whole thing has the air about it of a surly teenager who berates his parents and then 5 minutes later asks for them to give him a ride.

    People around her often (rightly) complain about who/whom on the left, but I get the feeling that in some topsy turvy universe where the situation was reversed (e.g. the Polish "populist" urge was to let in even more refugees and the EU was telling them to put on the brakes) that "populism" wouldn't be so popular around here. Ultimately what everyone want is for other folks to agree with their positions - there are no real principles of "democracy" attached to this

    Don’t get too carried away now. Many of the countries that have gone in a “populist” direction are also big EU (read German) aid recipients. We all know that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

    Do you know how it came to be that German entities own virtually the entire Polish financial system and large swathes of every other industry as well? Are you aware of the negotiation process that led to Poland’s accession to the EU, and the vast changes Poland had to make to many aspects of government, society, and economy to suit the tastes of Western elites and qualify for membership and the resultant aid? It doesn’t seem that you are aware, so let me tell you that there was indeed no “free lunch.”

    You know what else there wasn’t during the aforementioned negotiations? There wasn’t any mention of Poland having to accept demographic destruction at the whim of whoever pulls Angela Merkel’s strings. Immigration policy for non-EU citizens is firmly ascribed to national governments under EU organizational covenants, and EU aid is not contingent on Poland agreeing to take in an arbitrary number of Africans whenever Angela Merkel tells it to. Withdrawing contractually obligated regional funds due to a factor like third world immigration that isn’t part of the contract is unequivocally illegal.

    If the EU does this, Poland should respond by nationalizing German investments in the country and cozying up to Russia and China. It’s only a matter of time before it will have to do the latter anyway, since the demographic transition underway in the US and Western Europe will transform them into forces of out and out white-genocide soon enough. There is no future for Eastern Europe in the rapidly browning “West,” particularly since the browning will not stymie the hatred bloodthirsty lunatics like Robert Kagan have for Eastern Europeans, but unleash it.

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    Do you know how it came to be that German entities own virtually the entire Polish financial system and large swathes of every other industry as well?

    That did not come to be. Where did you get that ridiculous idea? Poland is actually the most independent of any country in Central Europe. The two largest banks - Pekao SA, PKO PB - are Polish, and have significant state ownership. The third largest bank is BZ WBK - owned by Santander, a Spanish bank.

    The Polish energy industry is notoriously closed to foreigners. Polish steel is in a variety of hands, including Chinese and Russian. Fiat has invested more in the Polish car industry than the Germans, who prefer the Czech Republic. The most obvious German control is Lufthansa owning LOT. Compared to Hungary- that has almost no domestic manufacturing industries worth mentioning and is basically living off EU handouts, agriculture and tourism - Poland is in pretty good shape
  75. I saw her yesterday in her only too obvious red coat; working the San Francisco Mission Street bodegas for votes from people who don’t speak English. How can Democracy work?

  76. Protection of religious and other minorities from the tyranny of the majority and the idea that humans have inalienable and constitutionally protected rights that cannot just be legislated away because 50% plus 1 of the people support such legislation was not invented by the Joos but by our Founding Fathers …

    And if you read what i actually wrote, you’ll see i made no such claim.

    My two examples–gay marriage and blocking Trump’s visa restrictions–are on point. There is no “inalienable” right involved either in natural law or in the constitution. What relationships the people choose to give a public “attaboy” to and who is allowed into the nation are both clearly public questions to be settled by the normal political process. The imposition of the elite-leftist view was nothing more than judicial tyranny–of which we get a lot.

    Meanwhile these same folks have destroyed a clear natural human right–freedom of association. Which unfortunately the founders could not imagine would be subject to such modern abuse, and hence did not enumerate. And they are beavering away to concoct bogus legal reasoning to destroy enumerated rights like freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.

    I will however make one clear disssent from your statement above. In the American system, “minorities” have no rights. Majorities–ever shifting–have a right to write and implement laws in accordance with the constitution. But there are no “minority” “rights”. What there are are individual rights which belong not to minorities nor any group but to individuals whether in the majority or minority on any particular issue. There simply are no “group rights” in the American system.

    Note, i’m not saying such a concept in antithetical to democratic governance. I could see a role for it maybe someplace like Canada or Belgium (or more complicated, India) where you might set up specific “group rights” to protect a national minority’s people and culture from domination. But no such system exists, or should exist in the US. (Ok, we sort of have such things for Indians–reservations and now casinos. A very special case for the indigenous inhabitants.)

    Attempts by leftists to try and create minority rights–right not to be offended, right to not have the majority imposing its will in way that leaves you feeling left out, right to blah, blah, blah–are again nothing but an attack on the majority, the American people and nation.

    • Agree: JMcG, Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @3g4me
    @45 Another Dad: "But there are no “minority” “rights”. What there are are individual rights which belong not to minorities nor any group but to individuals whether in the majority or minority on any particular issue. There simply are no “group rights” in the American system . . . Attempts by leftists to try and create minority rights–right not to be offended, right to not have the majority imposing its will in way that leaves you feeling left out, right to blah, blah, blah–are again nothing but an attack on the majority, the American people and nation."

    Very well said.
  77. @PiltdownMan

    The Swedish interpretation: Democracy is our most fundamental value, but it no longer means rule by and for the people. That would be Populism, which is pure evil and the great enemy of Democracy. Democracy means protecting “vulnerable” folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.
     
    To paraphrase you and Mr. Sailer's tweet, if a system elects a guy we like, then it is democracy, otherwise it is populism.

    You're not kidding about the avalanche of op-ed pieces about this, including the one by Noah Rothman that was highlighted by iSteve a couple of days ago. There seems to be some kind of effort at an intellectual counter-offensive going on, though no one seems to be able to pinpoint exactly what populism is.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-populism-really-the-villain-here/2018/03/07/de923c24-224a-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.c65f0ee594c5

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-its-so-difficult-to-kill-a-populist-movement/2018/03/09/28e2a7d2-22e6-11e8-badd-7c9f29a55815_story.html?utm_term=.fccc255c80d2

    You’re not kidding about the avalanche of op-ed pieces about this, including the one by Noah Rothman that was highlighted by iSteve a couple of days ago. There seems to be some kind of effort at an intellectual counter-offensive going on, though no one seems to be able to pinpoint exactly what populism is.

    It’s almost as if it’s a concerted effort. But of course, how could that be. That’s just crazy talk.

    And, by the way, where are Art Deco and Tyrion 2 to assure us that these are just the disjointed ramblings of has-beens who have no influence? After all, who is Robert Kagan anyway, or his wife Victoria Nuland? Nobodies!

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    And, by the way, where are Art Deco and Tyrion 2 to assure us that these are just the disjointed ramblings of has-beens who have no influence? After all, who is Robert Kagan anyway, or his wife Victoria Nuland? Nobodies!

    Nuland was a foreign service officer. She wasn't extensively educated (BA from Brown), and doesn't seem to have had any field postings, but to have prospered on networking at headquarters. She was a subcabinet officer for three years. (Alan Keyes, who seems to cause you no agita, was also a subcabinet officer). Lewis Amselem (Diplomad 2.0), who had more than three decades in the Foreign Service, offered the opinion that she was incompetent.

    Both Nuland and her husband are drawing salaries at think tanks. Their influence is a function of what people make of the working papers they produce.
  78. What a fat sack of s**t that guy is. If William Shakespeare had ever met Robert Kagan, he might have written Act I, Scene 2 of Julius Caesar a little different.

  79. @AnotherDad

    Protection of religious and other minorities from the tyranny of the majority and the idea that humans have inalienable and constitutionally protected rights that cannot just be legislated away because 50% plus 1 of the people support such legislation was not invented by the Joos but by our Founding Fathers ...
     
    And if you read what i actually wrote, you'll see i made no such claim.

    My two examples--gay marriage and blocking Trump's visa restrictions--are on point. There is no "inalienable" right involved either in natural law or in the constitution. What relationships the people choose to give a public "attaboy" to and who is allowed into the nation are both clearly public questions to be settled by the normal political process. The imposition of the elite-leftist view was nothing more than judicial tyranny--of which we get a lot.

    Meanwhile these same folks have destroyed a clear natural human right--freedom of association. Which unfortunately the founders could not imagine would be subject to such modern abuse, and hence did not enumerate. And they are beavering away to concoct bogus legal reasoning to destroy enumerated rights like freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.


    I will however make one clear disssent from your statement above. In the American system, "minorities" have no rights. Majorities--ever shifting--have a right to write and implement laws in accordance with the constitution. But there are no "minority" "rights". What there are are individual rights which belong not to minorities nor any group but to individuals whether in the majority or minority on any particular issue. There simply are no "group rights" in the American system.

    Note, i'm not saying such a concept in antithetical to democratic governance. I could see a role for it maybe someplace like Canada or Belgium (or more complicated, India) where you might set up specific "group rights" to protect a national minority's people and culture from domination. But no such system exists, or should exist in the US. (Ok, we sort of have such things for Indians--reservations and now casinos. A very special case for the indigenous inhabitants.)

    Attempts by leftists to try and create minority rights--right not to be offended, right to not have the majority imposing its will in way that leaves you feeling left out, right to blah, blah, blah--are again nothing but an attack on the majority, the American people and nation.

    @45 Another Dad: “But there are no “minority” “rights”. What there are are individual rights which belong not to minorities nor any group but to individuals whether in the majority or minority on any particular issue. There simply are no “group rights” in the American system . . . Attempts by leftists to try and create minority rights–right not to be offended, right to not have the majority imposing its will in way that leaves you feeling left out, right to blah, blah, blah–are again nothing but an attack on the majority, the American people and nation.”

    Very well said.

  80. @Realist
    Democracy....ya it doesn't work.

    Democratic Republics work less horribly than other forms of government as long as women and scofflaws are not franchised.

    • Replies: @Realist
    Yes, as long as race is homogeneous.
  81. @Jack D
    Protection of religious and other minorities from the tyranny of the majority and the idea that humans have inalienable and constitutionally protected rights that cannot just be legislated away because 50% plus 1 of the people support such legislation was not invented by the Joos but by our Founding Fathers (based on the precedents of common law and upon the works of non-Joo philosophers like Locke. In fact they were so concerned about this that the immediately enshrined these protections in a Bill of Rights that was made a part of our Constitution.

    If a majority of the people want to take away, say, your gun rights, do you "trust the people" in that case or is that somehow different?

    If a majority of the people want to take away, say, your gun rights, do you “trust the people” in that case or is that somehow different?

    It all depends on what is a majority. Given that gun rights are specifically recorded in the Constitution a simple 50+1 majority would not suffice to revoke them. However, the Founders did provide for a way to change the Constitution. If you can get 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress to propose something and 3/4 of all the states legislatures to approve it, then you could.

    In theory the protections of religious and other minorities that you write about could be abolished by such a procedure just as easily as gun rights. At the end of the day pretty much anything we take as a right could be abolished if it was done via the Constitutional Amendment process.

    Of course it wasn’t exactly easy to meet the 2/3rds threshold in Congress and 3/4 states approval back when we were relatively homogeneous. It is probably impossible today. But the point is even the Founders provided a way for a majority (super) to make such changes.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Something as radical as 'Prohibition' was both brought in, and later removed.
    , @Jack D
    The US Constitution is a brilliantly constructed balancing act. The very fact that it has endured for 200+ years (again longer than any other written constitution) shows how brilliant it is. Part of that balancing act was making the Constitution capable of amendment, because the Founders knew that, as brilliant as they were, conditions might change, they might have not correctly foreseen certain things (e.g. making the 2nd highest electoral vote getter the V.P. turned out to be a mistake), etc. BUT, they didn't want to make the Constitution really easy to amend so that it would just be another piece of legislation that got repealed every time political power changed hands the way the constitution gets changed in shithole countries. So the compromise was that you could amend the Constitution if you had to, but that the process for doing so was intentionally difficult and required a lot of national consensus, not just a bare majority.
  82. @Thomas
    Until last January, five days after Trump’s inauguration, Mrs. Kagan (aka, Victoria Nuland, former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs) might have been in a position to do something about this. Like, for example, bringing to heel a certain European country that’s recently adopted by law an unacceptable view of its own history between 1939 and 1945.

    The purge of the neocons has really been remarkable and rapid. They still kvetch endlessly in their periodicals and think tanks, but with nobody really being able to say what they mean aloud, it doesn’t really break wide.

    You’re not kidding about the avalanche of op-ed pieces about this, including the one by Noah Rothman that was highlighted by iSteve a couple of days ago. There seems to be some kind of effort at an intellectual counter-offensive going on, though no one seems to be able to pinpoint exactly what populism is.

    It’s not like they’ve gone away or lost all, or even most, of their influence. John Bolton (old Evil Captain Kangaroo himself) is being talked about as a replacement for H.R. McMaster, who reportedly will be stepping down as National Security Adviser.

  83. Ezra Pound said that the definition of “Democracy” in Europe means a country run by Jews.

  84. @Jack D
    Don't get too carried away now. Many of the countries that have gone in a "populist" direction are also big EU (read German) aid recipients. We all know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It's pretty ballsy to poke your finger in the eyes of the guy who is supporting you financially (one name for the person who supports you financially is "boss"). The whole populist/nationalist shtick would be a lot more convincing if it was coming from countries that were really self supporting. Regardless of whether you think they are right or wrong, the whole thing has the air about it of a surly teenager who berates his parents and then 5 minutes later asks for them to give him a ride.

    People around her often (rightly) complain about who/whom on the left, but I get the feeling that in some topsy turvy universe where the situation was reversed (e.g. the Polish "populist" urge was to let in even more refugees and the EU was telling them to put on the brakes) that "populism" wouldn't be so popular around here. Ultimately what everyone want is for other folks to agree with their positions - there are no real principles of "democracy" attached to this

    It’s pretty ballsy to poke your finger in the eyes of the guy who is supporting you financially (one name for the person who supports you financially is “boss”). The whole populist/nationalist shtick would be a lot more convincing if it was coming from countries that were really self supporting.

    Agreed.

    However this populism isn’t about say beer regulation or even tariffs. “Oh, you take our money and then try to keep out our Mercedes.”

    No, here it’s the “boss” telling the “surly teenagers” he expects them to drink Draino–literately commit national suicide. Do you think “the boss” has such a right? No, of course not.

    In this case the surly teenager is completely right and entitled to be surly and the boss is full of crap.

  85. @Jack D
    Don't get too carried away now. Many of the countries that have gone in a "populist" direction are also big EU (read German) aid recipients. We all know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It's pretty ballsy to poke your finger in the eyes of the guy who is supporting you financially (one name for the person who supports you financially is "boss"). The whole populist/nationalist shtick would be a lot more convincing if it was coming from countries that were really self supporting. Regardless of whether you think they are right or wrong, the whole thing has the air about it of a surly teenager who berates his parents and then 5 minutes later asks for them to give him a ride.

    People around her often (rightly) complain about who/whom on the left, but I get the feeling that in some topsy turvy universe where the situation was reversed (e.g. the Polish "populist" urge was to let in even more refugees and the EU was telling them to put on the brakes) that "populism" wouldn't be so popular around here. Ultimately what everyone want is for other folks to agree with their positions - there are no real principles of "democracy" attached to this

    The Eastern Central European countries sold their industries to the Westerners for peanuts and opened up their markets to them in exchange for promises of integration, including similar aid as then poor EU members received from the then richest ones.

    The EU is a complex deal, and you cannot just pick out one part of it showing that it supposedly favors some countries over others. In any event, the subsidies will probably be substantially cut after 2020.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The former soviet bloc nations made a Faustian bargain when the signed up with the EU Devil.
    Yes, they 'won' the ephemeral goodies of receiving huge tranches of western European taxpayer cash and of exporting their unemployment to western Europe.

    But, as the legend goes, eventually the Devil demands - and gets - what's 'rightfully' his own.
    The price is, of course, the souls of the central European nations, the souls being, literally, turned black by the EU/Economist mandated importation of a new replacement Afro/Asian population.
  86. If William Shakespeare had ever met Robert Kagan, he might have written Act I, Scene 2 of Julius Caesar a little different.

  87. Another Dad group rights are enshrined in the 1965 Civil Right Act. Like it or not Blacks, Muslims, Women and gays have group rights and White men have not only none but negative group rights. This was the aim of King and the basis of the Supremes many decisions. At best Wjiute men can create deterrence by fear and unity. There is no unscrambling the omlet.

    Kaga and Jean Claude Juncker run things in the E U. Merkel, Macron, May matter far less than trans national courts and E U bureaucrats. However if they force things there is another player who can project Hungary etc. Deot oif irony.

    Putin.

    It takes supreme idiocy to force Hungarians to Russians but Kagan and his master Juncker can do it.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    I can't believe I'm seeing Whiskey rail on a neocon and their worldview. How much longer do we have to wait before Whiskey is citing Pat Buchanan!
  88. @Buffalo Joe
    AD, saw some footage last week of Africans celebrating the Canonization of an African martyr. I was amazed at how obese the majority of the women were. Those long flowing robes can't hide an elephant sized butt.

    “elephant butt”

    There’s a name for that physical state, steatopygia.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    riches, oh yeah, you don't ever want to Google photos of "steatopygia"
  89. @Jack D
    Don't get too carried away now. Many of the countries that have gone in a "populist" direction are also big EU (read German) aid recipients. We all know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It's pretty ballsy to poke your finger in the eyes of the guy who is supporting you financially (one name for the person who supports you financially is "boss"). The whole populist/nationalist shtick would be a lot more convincing if it was coming from countries that were really self supporting. Regardless of whether you think they are right or wrong, the whole thing has the air about it of a surly teenager who berates his parents and then 5 minutes later asks for them to give him a ride.

    People around her often (rightly) complain about who/whom on the left, but I get the feeling that in some topsy turvy universe where the situation was reversed (e.g. the Polish "populist" urge was to let in even more refugees and the EU was telling them to put on the brakes) that "populism" wouldn't be so popular around here. Ultimately what everyone want is for other folks to agree with their positions - there are no real principles of "democracy" attached to this

    Many of the countries that have gone in a “populist” direction are also big EU (read German) aid recipients.

    Couldn’t you say something similar about Israel? She builds walls , deports migrants all while being a big recipient of US and German aid. But that doesn’t give the US or Germany the right to tell Israel how to behave. As people have repeatedly pointed out the US doesn’t have to give Israel aid. And apparently we only do it as corporate welfare for Lockheed and Boeing.

    Well Germany and the rest of the EU don’t have to give aid to Poland or Hungary either. And as people have pointed out the aid given to the east is probably a form of corporate welfare for German banks and companies anyway.

    If the EU and Germany are unhappy with the eastern nations, then kick them out and stop giving them aid. The fact that they don’t, and constantly obsess over the internal politics of those nations tells us that actual control of those nations is the goal. The aid money is just bait to take control of those nations. If I were the Visegrad contries, I’d call their bluff.

  90. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor
    The Eastern Central European countries sold their industries to the Westerners for peanuts and opened up their markets to them in exchange for promises of integration, including similar aid as then poor EU members received from the then richest ones.

    The EU is a complex deal, and you cannot just pick out one part of it showing that it supposedly favors some countries over others. In any event, the subsidies will probably be substantially cut after 2020.

    The former soviet bloc nations made a Faustian bargain when the signed up with the EU Devil.
    Yes, they ‘won’ the ephemeral goodies of receiving huge tranches of western European taxpayer cash and of exporting their unemployment to western Europe.

    But, as the legend goes, eventually the Devil demands – and gets – what’s ‘rightfully’ his own.
    The price is, of course, the souls of the central European nations, the souls being, literally, turned black by the EU/Economist mandated importation of a new replacement Afro/Asian population.

  91. @Jack D
    Don't get too carried away now. Many of the countries that have gone in a "populist" direction are also big EU (read German) aid recipients. We all know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It's pretty ballsy to poke your finger in the eyes of the guy who is supporting you financially (one name for the person who supports you financially is "boss"). The whole populist/nationalist shtick would be a lot more convincing if it was coming from countries that were really self supporting. Regardless of whether you think they are right or wrong, the whole thing has the air about it of a surly teenager who berates his parents and then 5 minutes later asks for them to give him a ride.

    People around her often (rightly) complain about who/whom on the left, but I get the feeling that in some topsy turvy universe where the situation was reversed (e.g. the Polish "populist" urge was to let in even more refugees and the EU was telling them to put on the brakes) that "populism" wouldn't be so popular around here. Ultimately what everyone want is for other folks to agree with their positions - there are no real principles of "democracy" attached to this

    If the Germans want to give away money, I’d much rather see Poland and Hungary be the recipients than Israel or 3rd world immigrants.

    But if German money comes with strings attached, then why aren’t they pressuring Israel to have open borders and equal rights for Palestinians, and abolish all the illiberal nationalist and religious aspects of the Israeli state?

  92. @Jack D
    I'm guessing that if and when we ever get around to building our border wall, this may not be popular with the drug smugglers, human traffickers, etc. whose livelihood depends on a porous border with Mexico and that therefore some of these folks might be tempted to throw rocks (or more) at our construction crews. Therefore we just might be calling on our Israeli friends to share their expertise in building armor plated bulldozers.

    Yes, but you also know we’ll never, ever be permitted the sort of security Israel enjoys against invaders, and this secretly pleases you. Or … not-so-secretly…

  93. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Our Founding Fathers were rightly suspicious of unlimited democracy, which indeed can be the tyranny of the majority over the minority. They therefore constructed a constitutional republic, where the excesses of democracy could be carefully counterbalanced by constitutional limits on the power of government and by offices that were not subject to direct election (one of those being the Presidency itself).

    Unfortunately, the original Constitutional framework is mostly in a shambles. In other countries it really never got going - the US is the country with the oldest written constitution that is still in effect. The French are on their 5th republic, which was established only in 1958. In most countries they change constitutions as often as they change hemlines - very often (as we see in China now) the constitution is a document that is tailored to the whims and political needs of whomever is in charge this week.

    Yes, but that Constitution did nothing whatsoever to ‘defend’ the ‘minority rights’ of Amerindians, whose ancestral home lands were very quickly over run by white Americans immediately after the revolution.
    Ironically, a major casus belli for the Revolutionary War was the British Crown’s downright refusal to contemplate further white settlement beyond the Appalachias. Strangely enough, King George made it his personal pledge to leave the Amerindians as undisputed occupiers of the American west.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Ironically, a major casus belli for the Revolutionary War was the British Crown’s downright refusal to contemplate further white settlement beyond the Appalachias. Strangely enough, King George made it his personal pledge to leave the Amerindians as undisputed occupiers of the American west.
     
    I did not know this. If true, and even granted George's incipient madness at the time, I sort of wish it had been implemented.

    OTOH, the Amerind lands, much like most of South Africa at the time, were so sparsely populated that it would have been impractical--if not unreasonable--to defend them against settlers, of whatever stripe.

    As we're often reminded nowadays, migrations are part and parcel of human history. A big difference though is that we're now pretty much filled up, unless we want total destruction of the natural environment. Which, apparently, we do.

  94. @Art Deco
    I could be charitable and suggest he's referring to abusive practices by certain governments (e.g. Russia's or Hungary's) and just being witlessly sloppy in his terminology (for which an academic political scientist hasn't many excuses). Problem: Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, and Britain have a history of abuse of political dissidents supervised by courts or by administrative tribunals. A generation ago, you heard about this sort of thing happening in Singapore to a certain amount of tut-tutting, but not really anywhere else. A Belgian court ordered the dissolution of one of the country's principal political parties and Dutch courts have had the country's opposition leader in the docket, so it's not functionally similar to proceedings contra the Communist Party in this country ca. 1955. Brigitte Bardot has been prosecuted five times for public remarks on social and political questions. Doesn't bother Freedom House and it apparently doesn't bother Robert Kagan. 'European Values' and all that.

    As you and your hero Robert Kagan both well know, the Hungarian government hasn’t engaged in any abusive practices.

    Israel, on the other hand . . .

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    the Hungarian government hasn’t engaged in any abusive practices.

    Orban is basically just interested in maximizing his own personal utility. It is sad how many "populists" just use talk of nationalism to distract people while they and their cronies rob the country blind. Orban doesn't have a sincere nationalist bone in his body. It is nice that Orban is keeping immigrants out, of a country that is happy enough to export its rapidly breeding gypsy population to the West. Orban is clever - he is very careful not to push the West too far, and he never will. But he knows exactly how far he can go, and does.

    Kaczynski, on the other hand, is that rare thing - a sincere patriot and a devout Roman Catholic.
  95. @The Anti-Gnostic
    We're still in the "ballots" stage. Voters still think they can vote to change the government. And we're still prosperous enough to keep people away from "bullets."

    ‘Never mind The Ballots – here’s The Economist’.

  96. @PiltdownMan

    The Swedish interpretation: Democracy is our most fundamental value, but it no longer means rule by and for the people. That would be Populism, which is pure evil and the great enemy of Democracy. Democracy means protecting “vulnerable” folk groups: i.e. rule by the Intersectional Victim Hierarchy. This is actually spelled out explicitly in countless newspaper opinion pieces.
     
    To paraphrase you and Mr. Sailer's tweet, if a system elects a guy we like, then it is democracy, otherwise it is populism.

    You're not kidding about the avalanche of op-ed pieces about this, including the one by Noah Rothman that was highlighted by iSteve a couple of days ago. There seems to be some kind of effort at an intellectual counter-offensive going on, though no one seems to be able to pinpoint exactly what populism is.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-populism-really-the-villain-here/2018/03/07/de923c24-224a-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.c65f0ee594c5

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-its-so-difficult-to-kill-a-populist-movement/2018/03/09/28e2a7d2-22e6-11e8-badd-7c9f29a55815_story.html?utm_term=.fccc255c80d2

    If a system elects a guy we like, then it is democracy, otherwise it is populism.

    This comment deserves enshrinement. It’s clearly the Credo of Our Age.

    They’re trying to redefine populism to equate it with fascism. They may yet succeed.

  97. @istevefan

    If a majority of the people want to take away, say, your gun rights, do you “trust the people” in that case or is that somehow different?
     
    It all depends on what is a majority. Given that gun rights are specifically recorded in the Constitution a simple 50+1 majority would not suffice to revoke them. However, the Founders did provide for a way to change the Constitution. If you can get 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress to propose something and 3/4 of all the states legislatures to approve it, then you could.

    In theory the protections of religious and other minorities that you write about could be abolished by such a procedure just as easily as gun rights. At the end of the day pretty much anything we take as a right could be abolished if it was done via the Constitutional Amendment process.

    Of course it wasn't exactly easy to meet the 2/3rds threshold in Congress and 3/4 states approval back when we were relatively homogeneous. It is probably impossible today. But the point is even the Founders provided a way for a majority (super) to make such changes.

    Something as radical as ‘Prohibition’ was both brought in, and later removed.

    • Replies: @istevefan

    Something as radical as ‘Prohibition’ was both brought in, and later removed.
     
    Yes, good example. I recall once a person was trying to equate the left's enacting their agenda through the courts with the people who pushed prohibition. When I pointed out all the hurdles the prohibitionists had to cross to change the Constitution versus just getting a couple of judges to rule in one's favor, the person was surprised. It never dawned on them that so much of the country had to have agreed with the prohibitionists. Of course it didn't take too much time for the nation to do a U-turn on that one. But in both cases it was done by the book.
  98. @riches
    "elephant butt"

    There's a name for that physical state, steatopygia.

    riches, oh yeah, you don’t ever want to Google photos of “steatopygia”

  99. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Don't get too carried away now. Many of the countries that have gone in a "populist" direction are also big EU (read German) aid recipients. We all know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It's pretty ballsy to poke your finger in the eyes of the guy who is supporting you financially (one name for the person who supports you financially is "boss"). The whole populist/nationalist shtick would be a lot more convincing if it was coming from countries that were really self supporting. Regardless of whether you think they are right or wrong, the whole thing has the air about it of a surly teenager who berates his parents and then 5 minutes later asks for them to give him a ride.

    People around her often (rightly) complain about who/whom on the left, but I get the feeling that in some topsy turvy universe where the situation was reversed (e.g. the Polish "populist" urge was to let in even more refugees and the EU was telling them to put on the brakes) that "populism" wouldn't be so popular around here. Ultimately what everyone want is for other folks to agree with their positions - there are no real principles of "democracy" attached to this

    As Enoch Powell said ‘Most people don’t really understand what kind of animal the EU is’.

    For certain, the eastern bloc nations never knew that signing up to the EU would mean compulsory massive black/brown immigration.
    I’m sure if they knew that was the price they would have never have joined in the first place.

  100. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    Democracy means keeping the borders open until the People get it right.

    Democracy means keeping the borders open until the People get it right.

    Another good one. Very good in fact. And oddly enough, once the borders have been open long enough, we’ll find that they’re open forever. The entire world can then become a third-world hellhole, presided over by a tiny, self-styled ‘elite’ while all the other ‘tribes’ fight over scraps.

  101. @Anonymous
    Yes, but that Constitution did nothing whatsoever to 'defend' the 'minority rights' of Amerindians, whose ancestral home lands were very quickly over run by white Americans immediately after the revolution.
    Ironically, a major casus belli for the Revolutionary War was the British Crown's downright refusal to contemplate further white settlement beyond the Appalachias. Strangely enough, King George made it his personal pledge to leave the Amerindians as undisputed occupiers of the American west.

    Ironically, a major casus belli for the Revolutionary War was the British Crown’s downright refusal to contemplate further white settlement beyond the Appalachias. Strangely enough, King George made it his personal pledge to leave the Amerindians as undisputed occupiers of the American west.

    I did not know this. If true, and even granted George’s incipient madness at the time, I sort of wish it had been implemented.

    OTOH, the Amerind lands, much like most of South Africa at the time, were so sparsely populated that it would have been impractical–if not unreasonable–to defend them against settlers, of whatever stripe.

    As we’re often reminded nowadays, migrations are part and parcel of human history. A big difference though is that we’re now pretty much filled up, unless we want total destruction of the natural environment. Which, apparently, we do.

  102. @Whiskey
    Another Dad group rights are enshrined in the 1965 Civil Right Act. Like it or not Blacks, Muslims, Women and gays have group rights and White men have not only none but negative group rights. This was the aim of King and the basis of the Supremes many decisions. At best Wjiute men can create deterrence by fear and unity. There is no unscrambling the omlet.

    Kaga and Jean Claude Juncker run things in the E U. Merkel, Macron, May matter far less than trans national courts and E U bureaucrats. However if they force things there is another player who can project Hungary etc. Deot oif irony.

    Putin.

    It takes supreme idiocy to force Hungarians to Russians but Kagan and his master Juncker can do it.

    I can’t believe I’m seeing Whiskey rail on a neocon and their worldview. How much longer do we have to wait before Whiskey is citing Pat Buchanan!

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    How much longer do we have to wait before Whiskey is citing Pat Buchanan
     
    Perhaps less time than it will take him to spell Pat's name correctly.
  103. @Anonymous
    The only 'crimes' that Hungary and Poland have committed is being reluctant to turn into 'multiracial' (ie white minority by 2100) societies.

    That tell you all you need to know about the EU/Economist establishment.

    The only ‘crimes’ that Hungary and Poland have committed is being reluctant to turn into ‘multiracial’ (ie white minority by 2100) societies.

    Exactly.

    And i’d like to see Trump–who was able to win precisely by tapping into nationalist sentiment–actually giving these folks at least rhetorical support.

    Heck just some straightforward, very clear, tweets:

    “We stand with the people of Poland and Hungary against thuggish EU/globalist bullying accepting illegal migrants.”

    “The people of every nation have an inherent fundamental right to determine who–in any–immigrants they want to accept into their nation. We stand with the people of Poland and Hungary”

    He can skip his faggy military parade and at least sound like a nationalist.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    I'm not one who pushes for regime change or needless intervention. But I think I could make an exception for the EU. Why not use the existing US forces in Europe to execute a liberation of the EU nations from Brussels? This would be akin to our invasion of Panama, albeit much larger, in which we used our local bases in Panama to launch a takeover by simply driving vehicles outside the base gates.

    Here are just some of the advantages we would have in Europe:

    1) We already have a large military presence there
    2) The European military forces are relatively weak and we know where all their forces are located.
    3) There would be numerous allies on the ground in the form of nationalists who are chomping at the bit for someone to take on Brussels.
    4) The Eastern Europeans like Poland and Hungary might even help.
    5) The European establishment is feminized and weak.

    Of course not even Trump would do this, but one can dream.
    , @Yngvar
    Didn't President Trump travel to Poland and say something like that?
  104. @Anonymous
    Something as radical as 'Prohibition' was both brought in, and later removed.

    Something as radical as ‘Prohibition’ was both brought in, and later removed.

    Yes, good example. I recall once a person was trying to equate the left’s enacting their agenda through the courts with the people who pushed prohibition. When I pointed out all the hurdles the prohibitionists had to cross to change the Constitution versus just getting a couple of judges to rule in one’s favor, the person was surprised. It never dawned on them that so much of the country had to have agreed with the prohibitionists. Of course it didn’t take too much time for the nation to do a U-turn on that one. But in both cases it was done by the book.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    1. Going by the book means very little. The Soviet Union had (on paper) a wonderful constitution, much better than ours, with all sorts of wonderful rights. And, contrary to what people think, most of the repressions in the Soviet Union were done under color of law. They didn't just shoot people (usually). You would have a (quick) trial before a (kangaroo) court and THEN they would shoot you.

    2. Prohibition was unique in our history - (aside perhaps from the abolition of slavery) it was the one and only social experiment that was enacted via constitutional amendment. It was tied to Women's Suffrage, the outbreak of WWI and other unique factors that all happened to line up for one brief moment. Nor will it ever again be necessary to do so - the power of the Federal government expanded so much starting with FDR that nowadays if the Federal government wanted to ban the production of alcohol they would just pass a Federal law against it and no one would question it. Back in 1917 the power of the Federal government was thought to be more limited (because that's what the Constitution said - those fools actually believed that it meant what it said).

  105. @istevefan

    If a majority of the people want to take away, say, your gun rights, do you “trust the people” in that case or is that somehow different?
     
    It all depends on what is a majority. Given that gun rights are specifically recorded in the Constitution a simple 50+1 majority would not suffice to revoke them. However, the Founders did provide for a way to change the Constitution. If you can get 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress to propose something and 3/4 of all the states legislatures to approve it, then you could.

    In theory the protections of religious and other minorities that you write about could be abolished by such a procedure just as easily as gun rights. At the end of the day pretty much anything we take as a right could be abolished if it was done via the Constitutional Amendment process.

    Of course it wasn't exactly easy to meet the 2/3rds threshold in Congress and 3/4 states approval back when we were relatively homogeneous. It is probably impossible today. But the point is even the Founders provided a way for a majority (super) to make such changes.

    The US Constitution is a brilliantly constructed balancing act. The very fact that it has endured for 200+ years (again longer than any other written constitution) shows how brilliant it is. Part of that balancing act was making the Constitution capable of amendment, because the Founders knew that, as brilliant as they were, conditions might change, they might have not correctly foreseen certain things (e.g. making the 2nd highest electoral vote getter the V.P. turned out to be a mistake), etc. BUT, they didn’t want to make the Constitution really easy to amend so that it would just be another piece of legislation that got repealed every time political power changed hands the way the constitution gets changed in shithole countries. So the compromise was that you could amend the Constitution if you had to, but that the process for doing so was intentionally difficult and required a lot of national consensus, not just a bare majority.

    • Replies: @istevefan

    So the compromise was that you could amend the Constitution if you had to, but that the process for doing so was intentionally difficult and required a lot of national consensus, not just a bare majority.
     
    I wholeheartedly agree with how they made the amendment process. But if we thought it was a tough row to hoe to amend when the US was an 85 percent white, Christian nation, it is downright unimaginable in our current multicult.
    , @Anonymous
    I wouldn't be so quick to play the anti-Semitism card there (#55). It stands to reason that if there is an activist, basically racist core of, uh, "Mormons" who are motivated by deep-seated animus toward Gentiles, this critical-mass subset might find congenial an ideology that strips all the natural liberties of the Gentile majority to transfer power to experts who, coincidentally in this meritocratic media-driven society, have disproportionally high rates of themselves being Mormon (Armenian, Brahmin, homosexual--whatever). The ethnic ill will surely enhances their activist dedication to neutering the majority.

    In other words, you don't have to be a Mormon to plump for rule-by-experts/managerialism, but it helps

    , @Art Deco
    The US Constitution is a brilliantly constructed balancing act. The very fact that it has endured for 200+ years (again longer than any other written constitution) shows how brilliant it is.

    No, it shows the effect of inertia. The judiciary has systematically ignored inconvenient constitutional provisions for 80 years and insisted for about 60 years now that the 'constitution' codifies whatever social policy is favored by their social circles. The U.S. Congress may be the occidental world's most ineffectual legislature (bar, perhaps, the Italian parliament), with the U.S. Senate a peculiarly corrupt and sclerotic body. As for the Presidency, it's grown into a parody of what it was 70 years ago.
  106. @Felix...

    Don’t get too carried away now. Many of the countries that have gone in a “populist” direction are also big EU (read German) aid recipients. We all know that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
     
    Do you know how it came to be that German entities own virtually the entire Polish financial system and large swathes of every other industry as well? Are you aware of the negotiation process that led to Poland's accession to the EU, and the vast changes Poland had to make to many aspects of government, society, and economy to suit the tastes of Western elites and qualify for membership and the resultant aid? It doesn't seem that you are aware, so let me tell you that there was indeed no "free lunch."

    You know what else there wasn't during the aforementioned negotiations? There wasn't any mention of Poland having to accept demographic destruction at the whim of whoever pulls Angela Merkel's strings. Immigration policy for non-EU citizens is firmly ascribed to national governments under EU organizational covenants, and EU aid is not contingent on Poland agreeing to take in an arbitrary number of Africans whenever Angela Merkel tells it to. Withdrawing contractually obligated regional funds due to a factor like third world immigration that isn't part of the contract is unequivocally illegal.

    If the EU does this, Poland should respond by nationalizing German investments in the country and cozying up to Russia and China. It's only a matter of time before it will have to do the latter anyway, since the demographic transition underway in the US and Western Europe will transform them into forces of out and out white-genocide soon enough. There is no future for Eastern Europe in the rapidly browning "West," particularly since the browning will not stymie the hatred bloodthirsty lunatics like Robert Kagan have for Eastern Europeans, but unleash it.

    Do you know how it came to be that German entities own virtually the entire Polish financial system and large swathes of every other industry as well?

    That did not come to be. Where did you get that ridiculous idea? Poland is actually the most independent of any country in Central Europe. The two largest banks – Pekao SA, PKO PB – are Polish, and have significant state ownership. The third largest bank is BZ WBK – owned by Santander, a Spanish bank.

    The Polish energy industry is notoriously closed to foreigners. Polish steel is in a variety of hands, including Chinese and Russian. Fiat has invested more in the Polish car industry than the Germans, who prefer the Czech Republic. The most obvious German control is Lufthansa owning LOT. Compared to Hungary- that has almost no domestic manufacturing industries worth mentioning and is basically living off EU handouts, agriculture and tourism – Poland is in pretty good shape

  107. @AnotherDad

    The only ‘crimes’ that Hungary and Poland have committed is being reluctant to turn into ‘multiracial’ (ie white minority by 2100) societies.
     
    Exactly.

    And i'd like to see Trump--who was able to win precisely by tapping into nationalist sentiment--actually giving these folks at least rhetorical support.

    Heck just some straightforward, very clear, tweets:

    "We stand with the people of Poland and Hungary against thuggish EU/globalist bullying accepting illegal migrants."

    "The people of every nation have an inherent fundamental right to determine who--in any--immigrants they want to accept into their nation. We stand with the people of Poland and Hungary"

    He can skip his faggy military parade and at least sound like a nationalist.

    I’m not one who pushes for regime change or needless intervention. But I think I could make an exception for the EU. Why not use the existing US forces in Europe to execute a liberation of the EU nations from Brussels? This would be akin to our invasion of Panama, albeit much larger, in which we used our local bases in Panama to launch a takeover by simply driving vehicles outside the base gates.

    Here are just some of the advantages we would have in Europe:

    1) We already have a large military presence there
    2) The European military forces are relatively weak and we know where all their forces are located.
    3) There would be numerous allies on the ground in the form of nationalists who are chomping at the bit for someone to take on Brussels.
    4) The Eastern Europeans like Poland and Hungary might even help.
    5) The European establishment is feminized and weak.

    Of course not even Trump would do this, but one can dream.

  108. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Neoconservative is a bad word and apparently neoliberal is a bad word too. Apparently neoliberals and neoconservatives both agree that we should Invade the World, so I'm not clear as to what the difference is between them, at least on foreign policy. Is there any kind of neo that is good, or is neo like populist - something that you want to tag your opponent with but will never admit to being yourself?

    I think NL is a way more established term for it across the pond (where the Nixon-era usage of “neoconservative” would have confusing connotations). Rhetorically the Eurotrash were boxed in by calling Reagan a Hitler despite essentially following his lead so the “neoliberal” label came up via the reds, who were simultaneously calling apostate ex-commies “neoconservative.” Both are meant to be pejoratives, basically. There’s no need for the “neo” in NL which seems to me to be just plain liberalism, Manchester Free Trade, Woodrow Wilson etc. etc… except by adding that prefix it necessarily refers to a post-war U.S.-hegemonic version of same

  109. @John Gruskos
    As you and your hero Robert Kagan both well know, the Hungarian government hasn't engaged in any abusive practices.

    Israel, on the other hand . . .

    the Hungarian government hasn’t engaged in any abusive practices.

    Orban is basically just interested in maximizing his own personal utility. It is sad how many “populists” just use talk of nationalism to distract people while they and their cronies rob the country blind. Orban doesn’t have a sincere nationalist bone in his body. It is nice that Orban is keeping immigrants out, of a country that is happy enough to export its rapidly breeding gypsy population to the West. Orban is clever – he is very careful not to push the West too far, and he never will. But he knows exactly how far he can go, and does.

    Kaczynski, on the other hand, is that rare thing – a sincere patriot and a devout Roman Catholic.

    • Replies: @Felix...

    Orban is basically just interested in maximizing his own personal utility. It is sad how many “populists” just use talk of nationalism to distract people while they and their cronies rob the country blind. Orban doesn’t have a sincere nationalist bone in his body. It is nice that Orban is keeping immigrants out, of a country that is happy enough to export its rapidly breeding gypsy population to the West. Orban is clever – he is very careful not to push the West too far, and he never will. But he knows exactly how far he can go, and does.
     
    Sounds like a perfectly fair bargain to me. In the West politicians and their cronies (or I should say the cronies and their politicians) rob the country blind AND flood it with immigrants.

    Now, I do not actually know whether it is true that Orban is impoverishing Hungary in the process of making himself wealthy. Obviously if he is, it would be better if he wasn't. But whether he truly is a nationalist or is carrying out a nationalist agenda out of pure political convenience is completely irrelevant. So long as he is carrying out the will of the people, what does it matter what his personal opinions on the topic might be? The concept underlying representative democracy is that elected officials act as surrogates of the electorate, not as free-spirits out to self actualize their personal beliefs while the population watches the spectacle with bated breath and fingers crossed so see what the crazy bastard might do next.

    , @Art Deco
    I have a suspicion both you and Mr. Gruskos have assessments of the Hungarian government which are valid between your ears and nowhere else. Have fun pulling on eachother's braids.
  110. @Jack D
    The US Constitution is a brilliantly constructed balancing act. The very fact that it has endured for 200+ years (again longer than any other written constitution) shows how brilliant it is. Part of that balancing act was making the Constitution capable of amendment, because the Founders knew that, as brilliant as they were, conditions might change, they might have not correctly foreseen certain things (e.g. making the 2nd highest electoral vote getter the V.P. turned out to be a mistake), etc. BUT, they didn't want to make the Constitution really easy to amend so that it would just be another piece of legislation that got repealed every time political power changed hands the way the constitution gets changed in shithole countries. So the compromise was that you could amend the Constitution if you had to, but that the process for doing so was intentionally difficult and required a lot of national consensus, not just a bare majority.

    So the compromise was that you could amend the Constitution if you had to, but that the process for doing so was intentionally difficult and required a lot of national consensus, not just a bare majority.

    I wholeheartedly agree with how they made the amendment process. But if we thought it was a tough row to hoe to amend when the US was an 85 percent white, Christian nation, it is downright unimaginable in our current multicult.

  111. @istevefan

    Something as radical as ‘Prohibition’ was both brought in, and later removed.
     
    Yes, good example. I recall once a person was trying to equate the left's enacting their agenda through the courts with the people who pushed prohibition. When I pointed out all the hurdles the prohibitionists had to cross to change the Constitution versus just getting a couple of judges to rule in one's favor, the person was surprised. It never dawned on them that so much of the country had to have agreed with the prohibitionists. Of course it didn't take too much time for the nation to do a U-turn on that one. But in both cases it was done by the book.

    1. Going by the book means very little. The Soviet Union had (on paper) a wonderful constitution, much better than ours, with all sorts of wonderful rights. And, contrary to what people think, most of the repressions in the Soviet Union were done under color of law. They didn’t just shoot people (usually). You would have a (quick) trial before a (kangaroo) court and THEN they would shoot you.

    2. Prohibition was unique in our history – (aside perhaps from the abolition of slavery) it was the one and only social experiment that was enacted via constitutional amendment. It was tied to Women’s Suffrage, the outbreak of WWI and other unique factors that all happened to line up for one brief moment. Nor will it ever again be necessary to do so – the power of the Federal government expanded so much starting with FDR that nowadays if the Federal government wanted to ban the production of alcohol they would just pass a Federal law against it and no one would question it. Back in 1917 the power of the Federal government was thought to be more limited (because that’s what the Constitution said – those fools actually believed that it meant what it said).

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @snorlax
    1. The least believable of all the Soviet constitution's fictions — that it was a EU-like supranational body whose members had all willingly signed the Union Treaty and remained free to withdraw at any time — would be the one that ended up biting them in the ass.

    2. Prohibition actually was first passed as a Federal law (the Wartime Prohibition Act) before the ratification of the 19th Amendment. The amendment was more about making it difficult to repeal (there was a sense they had to make the most of the situation, given the declining Anglo Protestant share of the population, the young men about to return from Europe, and the German-American beer magnates having been temporarily cowed into silence).

    Secondarily, they also wanted to associate Prohibition with the prestige of being in the Constitution, alongside the words of the Founders. If it were just a law, then you could have legitimate differences of opinion, but it's un-American to subvert the Constitution.

    Kennedy-Johnson era liberalism was similarly big on enshrining their proposals as Holy Writ in the Constitution: the 23rd Amendment (D.C. electors) in 1961, 24th (poll tax ban) in 1964, 25th (incapacity of POTUS) in 1967 and 26th (18yo voting) in 1971. All of which could just as easily have been Federal laws.*

    Liberals lost interest in Constitutional amendments after the Equal Rights Amendment failed, and their subsequent discoveries (1990's) that the Constitution is Dead because it was written by Dead White Men, and then (2000's) that the Constitution is Evil because it was written by Evil Dead White Men.

    *AFAICT the only amendments that, under currently-prevailing legal theories, couldn't simply be Federal laws are the 12th (POTUS & VP elected separately), 14th (citizenship rights binding on states), 16th (income tax), 17th (direct election of Senators) and 21st (Prohibition repeal).
  112. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    The US Constitution is a brilliantly constructed balancing act. The very fact that it has endured for 200+ years (again longer than any other written constitution) shows how brilliant it is. Part of that balancing act was making the Constitution capable of amendment, because the Founders knew that, as brilliant as they were, conditions might change, they might have not correctly foreseen certain things (e.g. making the 2nd highest electoral vote getter the V.P. turned out to be a mistake), etc. BUT, they didn't want to make the Constitution really easy to amend so that it would just be another piece of legislation that got repealed every time political power changed hands the way the constitution gets changed in shithole countries. So the compromise was that you could amend the Constitution if you had to, but that the process for doing so was intentionally difficult and required a lot of national consensus, not just a bare majority.

    I wouldn’t be so quick to play the anti-Semitism card there (#55). It stands to reason that if there is an activist, basically racist core of, uh, “Mormons” who are motivated by deep-seated animus toward Gentiles, this critical-mass subset might find congenial an ideology that strips all the natural liberties of the Gentile majority to transfer power to experts who, coincidentally in this meritocratic media-driven society, have disproportionally high rates of themselves being Mormon (Armenian, Brahmin, homosexual–whatever). The ethnic ill will surely enhances their activist dedication to neutering the majority.

    In other words, you don’t have to be a Mormon to plump for rule-by-experts/managerialism, but it helps

  113. Jews need to be shamed for their totalitarian leanings, to the point that they overcompensate in the other direction, out of constant worry over even the appearance of impropriety.

    They aren’t wired to handle success.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Jews need to be shamed for their totalitarian leanings,

    There are about two dozen countries in the world which have had electoral institutions continuously in operation since 1922 (periods of foreign occupation excepted). One of them is apparently shot through with totalitarians. I take it New York and Miami are hell on Earth too.
  114. @Seamus Padraig
    Don't know how that's possible. Both the NED and the NDI are funded and run by congress. They answer to the State Department--or anyone else in the executive branch.

    Congress has to approve the budget cut as part of the State Department budget, which might be problematic.

  115. @Peter Akuleyev
    the Hungarian government hasn’t engaged in any abusive practices.

    Orban is basically just interested in maximizing his own personal utility. It is sad how many "populists" just use talk of nationalism to distract people while they and their cronies rob the country blind. Orban doesn't have a sincere nationalist bone in his body. It is nice that Orban is keeping immigrants out, of a country that is happy enough to export its rapidly breeding gypsy population to the West. Orban is clever - he is very careful not to push the West too far, and he never will. But he knows exactly how far he can go, and does.

    Kaczynski, on the other hand, is that rare thing - a sincere patriot and a devout Roman Catholic.

    Orban is basically just interested in maximizing his own personal utility. It is sad how many “populists” just use talk of nationalism to distract people while they and their cronies rob the country blind. Orban doesn’t have a sincere nationalist bone in his body. It is nice that Orban is keeping immigrants out, of a country that is happy enough to export its rapidly breeding gypsy population to the West. Orban is clever – he is very careful not to push the West too far, and he never will. But he knows exactly how far he can go, and does.

    Sounds like a perfectly fair bargain to me. In the West politicians and their cronies (or I should say the cronies and their politicians) rob the country blind AND flood it with immigrants.

    Now, I do not actually know whether it is true that Orban is impoverishing Hungary in the process of making himself wealthy. Obviously if he is, it would be better if he wasn’t. But whether he truly is a nationalist or is carrying out a nationalist agenda out of pure political convenience is completely irrelevant. So long as he is carrying out the will of the people, what does it matter what his personal opinions on the topic might be? The concept underlying representative democracy is that elected officials act as surrogates of the electorate, not as free-spirits out to self actualize their personal beliefs while the population watches the spectacle with bated breath and fingers crossed so see what the crazy bastard might do next.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Now, I do not actually know whether it is true that Orban is impoverishing Hungary in the process of making himself wealthy.

    Hungary's a middle-income country (GDP per capita nominal is about 1/4 that of the U.S., by purchasing power parity about 45% that of the U.S.). Unemployment rate is under 4%. Inflation rate is under 2%. Debt-to-GDP ratio high but reasonable at 75%. Positive trade balance. Employment-to-population ratio is 0.6, or about that of the U.S. Annual growth rate in GDP per capita (PPP) over the period running from 2009 to 2016 averaged 2% (that of the U.S. averaged 1.3%). That's not what 'impoverishment' looks like.
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    I do not actually know whether it is true that Orban is impoverishing Hungary in the process of making himself wealthy.

    He's not. I'll give him credit, he is a master at grabbing EU funds, and he has encouraged a lot of foreign investment. So you can, and a lot of Hungarians do, excuse the way he enriches himself and his cronies. My point was to contrast Hungary with Poland. Poland, like the Czech Republic, has sustainable economic growth with native industries and native entrepreneurs. Hungary has relatively little domestic controlled industry. The country has a lot of good jobs in car manufacturing, retail, electronics, and chemicals, but all controlled by foreigners. Hungarians get paid well to work for Asians and Westerners, but how sustainable is that long term?
  116. @Loveofknowledge
    I'm starting to think that the sort of republican government you describe is only possible in a country that is culturally homogeneous to a certain extent.

    At the time of America's founding, you still had "elites" - the natural aristocracy that Thomas Jefferson talked about, of which he was a member.

    It was not necessarily majoritarian democracy - in fact the Founding Fathers didn't really believe in that. There wasn't universal suffrage either, voting could be restricted to those who owned property.

    However, and this is the key point: the system worked because the elites generally shared the sentiments of the people. After all, they practiced the same religion, spoke the same language, shared the same history and culture, etc.

    Surely in some cases the elites felt superior and could be greedy and selfish, etc. People and people. But having the cultural commonality with the masses generally gave the elites a sense of "noblesse oblige".

    In any case, the people probably generally felt as though their leaders represented them. When the ruling class is predominantly of a different ethnic group or religion or cultural outlook, it's a lot easier for them to exploit, push around, and not care about the masses. The masses end up feeling like they're being ruled by a foreign power ("internal colonization").

    I wonder if for all the Western criticism of China for having an authoritarian government, the Chinese people don't feel as subjugated as we might think - after all, they're being ruled by fellow Han Chinese who want what's good for the Chinese nation. Same with Putin's Russia.

    I'm not sure what the solution is other than breaking up the country along ethnic and religious lines. To the extent that the problem is excessive Jewish influence, maybe that could be reined in a little and it would help.

    But I think there has also been a sort of religious civil war going on among white people for a least the last 50 years, between traditional Christianity and secular liberalism. That's where you get the most intense disagreements, like over abortion and gay marriage.

    When a disagreement goes to a fundamental religious/philosophical difference like that, then it no longer becomes just a different opinion that people respect, that we can debate and vote on and let the majority decide. It becomes a war, where all is fair - lying, scheming, bringing in immigrants, do whatever we have to do to win, screw the way the political institutions like the judiciary are really supposed to work.

    I suppose Western civilization has had plenty of religious schisms over the centuries, and they eventually work themselves out. The key is to not give the country away to foreigners in the meantime.

    Maybe we need to acknowledge that we're in a civil war and just establish some "laws of war". In a literal war where both sides are trying to kill each other, they can still agree not to use chemical weapons, for example.

    I think Law of Religious Civil War #1 should be: you can't bring in millions of foreign mercenaries (i.e. immigrant voters) to help your side. That will be bad for all of us, even the liberals themselves in the long run.

    Slightly OT, but somewhat related, as Gomer would have said, “Surprise, Surprise!!”

    Putin is getting slammed for saying Jews might have interfered in the US election.

    President Vladimir Putin of Russia elicited sharp blow-back when he claimed that even though individuals with Russian citizenship may have worked to interfere in the 2016 US elections, they may not actually have been Russian because of their Jewish faith.

    Putin made the remarks during a long interview with NBC News host Megyn Kelly that aired on Saturday. Putin claimed that even though the individuals could have had Russian citizenship, they might not have been Russian after all.

    “Maybe they’re not even Russians,” Putin said. “Maybe they’re Ukrainian, Tatars, Jews — just with Russian citizenship.”

    “President Putin bizarrely has resorted to the blame game by pointing the finger at Jews and other minorities in his country,” Anti-Defamation League chief executive Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement. “It is deeply disturbing to see the Russian president giving new life to classic anti-Semitic stereotypes that have plagued his country for hundreds of years.

    Business Insider, March 11, 2018

    And he didn’t even mention AIPAC!!

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Putin's enemies 0f course pounced on this by distorting his words - he mentions Jews on a list of other nationalities - it wasn't as if he was mentioning Jews specifically. Part of this is the different understanding of nationality vs citizenship in Russia vs. the US. In America, everyone is "American" but in Russia, Jews are considered to be a separate ethnic group just like Armenians, Georgians, etc. and are distinct from "Russians" even though they all may have Russian citizenship. So in Russia if you say "a Russian did this" it means a person of Russian ethnicity and not a Ukrainian, Tatar, Jew, etc. That was Putin's point but it sails completely over the head of Americans because Americans don't look at nationality that way .
  117. @james wilson
    Democratic Republics work less horribly than other forms of government as long as women and scofflaws are not franchised.

    Yes, as long as race is homogeneous.

  118. @Jack D
    1. Going by the book means very little. The Soviet Union had (on paper) a wonderful constitution, much better than ours, with all sorts of wonderful rights. And, contrary to what people think, most of the repressions in the Soviet Union were done under color of law. They didn't just shoot people (usually). You would have a (quick) trial before a (kangaroo) court and THEN they would shoot you.

    2. Prohibition was unique in our history - (aside perhaps from the abolition of slavery) it was the one and only social experiment that was enacted via constitutional amendment. It was tied to Women's Suffrage, the outbreak of WWI and other unique factors that all happened to line up for one brief moment. Nor will it ever again be necessary to do so - the power of the Federal government expanded so much starting with FDR that nowadays if the Federal government wanted to ban the production of alcohol they would just pass a Federal law against it and no one would question it. Back in 1917 the power of the Federal government was thought to be more limited (because that's what the Constitution said - those fools actually believed that it meant what it said).

    1. The least believable of all the Soviet constitution’s fictions — that it was a EU-like supranational body whose members had all willingly signed the Union Treaty and remained free to withdraw at any time — would be the one that ended up biting them in the ass.

    2. Prohibition actually was first passed as a Federal law (the Wartime Prohibition Act) before the ratification of the 19th Amendment. The amendment was more about making it difficult to repeal (there was a sense they had to make the most of the situation, given the declining Anglo Protestant share of the population, the young men about to return from Europe, and the German-American beer magnates having been temporarily cowed into silence).

    Secondarily, they also wanted to associate Prohibition with the prestige of being in the Constitution, alongside the words of the Founders. If it were just a law, then you could have legitimate differences of opinion, but it’s un-American to subvert the Constitution.

    Kennedy-Johnson era liberalism was similarly big on enshrining their proposals as Holy Writ in the Constitution: the 23rd Amendment (D.C. electors) in 1961, 24th (poll tax ban) in 1964, 25th (incapacity of POTUS) in 1967 and 26th (18yo voting) in 1971. All of which could just as easily have been Federal laws.*

    Liberals lost interest in Constitutional amendments after the Equal Rights Amendment failed, and their subsequent discoveries (1990’s) that the Constitution is Dead because it was written by Dead White Men, and then (2000’s) that the Constitution is Evil because it was written by Evil Dead White Men.

    *AFAICT the only amendments that, under currently-prevailing legal theories, couldn’t simply be Federal laws are the 12th (POTUS & VP elected separately), 14th (citizenship rights binding on states), 16th (income tax), 17th (direct election of Senators) and 21st (Prohibition repeal).

  119. @istevefan
    I can't believe I'm seeing Whiskey rail on a neocon and their worldview. How much longer do we have to wait before Whiskey is citing Pat Buchanan!

    How much longer do we have to wait before Whiskey is citing Pat Buchanan

    Perhaps less time than it will take him to spell Pat’s name correctly.

  120. Me, I think we’ve been far too permissive with guys with names like Kagan holding the reins and driving us over a cliff.

  121. @Peter Akuleyev
    the Hungarian government hasn’t engaged in any abusive practices.

    Orban is basically just interested in maximizing his own personal utility. It is sad how many "populists" just use talk of nationalism to distract people while they and their cronies rob the country blind. Orban doesn't have a sincere nationalist bone in his body. It is nice that Orban is keeping immigrants out, of a country that is happy enough to export its rapidly breeding gypsy population to the West. Orban is clever - he is very careful not to push the West too far, and he never will. But he knows exactly how far he can go, and does.

    Kaczynski, on the other hand, is that rare thing - a sincere patriot and a devout Roman Catholic.

    I have a suspicion both you and Mr. Gruskos have assessments of the Hungarian government which are valid between your ears and nowhere else. Have fun pulling on eachother’s braids.

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    I am sure you are quite the expert on Hungary, sitting in the US, speaking no foreign languages and pulling statistics from World Bank fact books.
  122. @Felix...

    Orban is basically just interested in maximizing his own personal utility. It is sad how many “populists” just use talk of nationalism to distract people while they and their cronies rob the country blind. Orban doesn’t have a sincere nationalist bone in his body. It is nice that Orban is keeping immigrants out, of a country that is happy enough to export its rapidly breeding gypsy population to the West. Orban is clever – he is very careful not to push the West too far, and he never will. But he knows exactly how far he can go, and does.
     
    Sounds like a perfectly fair bargain to me. In the West politicians and their cronies (or I should say the cronies and their politicians) rob the country blind AND flood it with immigrants.

    Now, I do not actually know whether it is true that Orban is impoverishing Hungary in the process of making himself wealthy. Obviously if he is, it would be better if he wasn't. But whether he truly is a nationalist or is carrying out a nationalist agenda out of pure political convenience is completely irrelevant. So long as he is carrying out the will of the people, what does it matter what his personal opinions on the topic might be? The concept underlying representative democracy is that elected officials act as surrogates of the electorate, not as free-spirits out to self actualize their personal beliefs while the population watches the spectacle with bated breath and fingers crossed so see what the crazy bastard might do next.

    Now, I do not actually know whether it is true that Orban is impoverishing Hungary in the process of making himself wealthy.

    Hungary’s a middle-income country (GDP per capita nominal is about 1/4 that of the U.S., by purchasing power parity about 45% that of the U.S.). Unemployment rate is under 4%. Inflation rate is under 2%. Debt-to-GDP ratio high but reasonable at 75%. Positive trade balance. Employment-to-population ratio is 0.6, or about that of the U.S. Annual growth rate in GDP per capita (PPP) over the period running from 2009 to 2016 averaged 2% (that of the U.S. averaged 1.3%). That’s not what ‘impoverishment’ looks like.

  123. @Svigor
    Jews need to be shamed for their totalitarian leanings, to the point that they overcompensate in the other direction, out of constant worry over even the appearance of impropriety.

    They aren't wired to handle success.

    Jews need to be shamed for their totalitarian leanings,

    There are about two dozen countries in the world which have had electoral institutions continuously in operation since 1922 (periods of foreign occupation excepted). One of them is apparently shot through with totalitarians. I take it New York and Miami are hell on Earth too.

    • Replies: @3g4me
    @123 Art Deco: " I take it New York and Miami are hell on Earth too."

    I think that's a fair assessment - they're both loud, filthy, filled with diversity, and occupying space the rightfully belongs to Americans.
  124. @Jack D
    The US Constitution is a brilliantly constructed balancing act. The very fact that it has endured for 200+ years (again longer than any other written constitution) shows how brilliant it is. Part of that balancing act was making the Constitution capable of amendment, because the Founders knew that, as brilliant as they were, conditions might change, they might have not correctly foreseen certain things (e.g. making the 2nd highest electoral vote getter the V.P. turned out to be a mistake), etc. BUT, they didn't want to make the Constitution really easy to amend so that it would just be another piece of legislation that got repealed every time political power changed hands the way the constitution gets changed in shithole countries. So the compromise was that you could amend the Constitution if you had to, but that the process for doing so was intentionally difficult and required a lot of national consensus, not just a bare majority.

    The US Constitution is a brilliantly constructed balancing act. The very fact that it has endured for 200+ years (again longer than any other written constitution) shows how brilliant it is.

    No, it shows the effect of inertia. The judiciary has systematically ignored inconvenient constitutional provisions for 80 years and insisted for about 60 years now that the ‘constitution’ codifies whatever social policy is favored by their social circles. The U.S. Congress may be the occidental world’s most ineffectual legislature (bar, perhaps, the Italian parliament), with the U.S. Senate a peculiarly corrupt and sclerotic body. As for the Presidency, it’s grown into a parody of what it was 70 years ago.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  125. @AnotherDad

    The only ‘crimes’ that Hungary and Poland have committed is being reluctant to turn into ‘multiracial’ (ie white minority by 2100) societies.
     
    Exactly.

    And i'd like to see Trump--who was able to win precisely by tapping into nationalist sentiment--actually giving these folks at least rhetorical support.

    Heck just some straightforward, very clear, tweets:

    "We stand with the people of Poland and Hungary against thuggish EU/globalist bullying accepting illegal migrants."

    "The people of every nation have an inherent fundamental right to determine who--in any--immigrants they want to accept into their nation. We stand with the people of Poland and Hungary"

    He can skip his faggy military parade and at least sound like a nationalist.

    Didn’t President Trump travel to Poland and say something like that?

  126. @Mr. Anon

    You’re not kidding about the avalanche of op-ed pieces about this, including the one by Noah Rothman that was highlighted by iSteve a couple of days ago. There seems to be some kind of effort at an intellectual counter-offensive going on, though no one seems to be able to pinpoint exactly what populism is.
     
    It's almost as if it's a concerted effort. But of course, how could that be. That's just crazy talk.

    And, by the way, where are Art Deco and Tyrion 2 to assure us that these are just the disjointed ramblings of has-beens who have no influence? After all, who is Robert Kagan anyway, or his wife Victoria Nuland? Nobodies!

    And, by the way, where are Art Deco and Tyrion 2 to assure us that these are just the disjointed ramblings of has-beens who have no influence? After all, who is Robert Kagan anyway, or his wife Victoria Nuland? Nobodies!

    Nuland was a foreign service officer. She wasn’t extensively educated (BA from Brown), and doesn’t seem to have had any field postings, but to have prospered on networking at headquarters. She was a subcabinet officer for three years. (Alan Keyes, who seems to cause you no agita, was also a subcabinet officer). Lewis Amselem (Diplomad 2.0), who had more than three decades in the Foreign Service, offered the opinion that she was incompetent.

    Both Nuland and her husband are drawing salaries at think tanks. Their influence is a function of what people make of the working papers they produce.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Both Nuland and her husband are drawing salaries at think tanks. Their influence is a function of what people make of the working papers they produce.
     
    .................and whom they talk to at cocktail parties, and who's ears they whisper into in the mens room (I'm including Victoria Nuland here), etc.

    From Kagan's Wiki-page:


    In 1997, Kagan co-founded the now-defunct neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century with William Kristol.[3][5][11] Through the work of the PNAC, from 1998, Kagan was an early and strong advocate of military action to "remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power".[12][13] The US achieved that goal in 2003, through the Iraq war.

    From 1998 until August, 2010, Kagan was a Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He was appointed senior fellow in the Center on United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution in September 2010.[14][15][16][17] He is also a member of the board of directors for the neoconservative think tank The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).[18]

    During the 2008 presidential campaign he served as foreign policy advisor to John McCain, the Republican Party's nominee for President of the United States in the 2008 election.[19][20]

    Since 2011, Kagan has also served on the 25-member State Department's Foreign Affairs Policy Board under Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton[21] and John Kerry.[22]
     

    Does that sound like somebody who is uninfluential?

    From Victoria Nuland's Wikipage:


    "During the Bill Clinton administration, Nuland was chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott before moving on to serve as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs.

    She served as the principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and then as U.S. ambassador to NATO.

    Nuland became special envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and then became State Department spokesperson in summer 2011.[7]

    She was nominated to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in May 2013 and sworn in to fill that role in September 2013.
     

    Does that sound like somebody who is uninfluential?

    You are a liar.

    Idiot.

  127. FWIW the German Marshall Fund was founded by close Sackler family associate Guido Goldman.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/founder-of-german-marshall-fund-guido-goldman-retires-a-834696.html

    Goldman’s precocious career is the by-product of his upbringing. His father Nahum Goldmann, born in what is now Belarus and raised in Germany, founded the World Jewish Congress and negotiated post-war repatriation settlements for Jewish survivors in Europe. His mother was from Berlin. Born in Switzerland, Guido Goldman moved with his parents and younger brother to New York in 1940 as refugees fleeing the war.

    Growing up, luminaries such as former German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and presidential advisor and financier Bernard Baruch were frequent guests at his home on Central Park West. In 1959 he went to Harvard where former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski was one of his undergraduate tutors and Henry Kissinger one of his PhD advisors.

    An organization most people don’t know.

    https://www.voltairenet.org/article30085.html

    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/German_Marshall_Fund

    http://www.eilatgordinlevitan.com/vishnevo/v_pages/vstories_nahum_goldman.html

    https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/German_Marshall_Fund

  128. The German Marshall Fund is behind the “Hamilton 68” project to exaggerate Russian activity and influence in social media.

  129. @Jack D
    Don't get too carried away now. Many of the countries that have gone in a "populist" direction are also big EU (read German) aid recipients. We all know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It's pretty ballsy to poke your finger in the eyes of the guy who is supporting you financially (one name for the person who supports you financially is "boss"). The whole populist/nationalist shtick would be a lot more convincing if it was coming from countries that were really self supporting. Regardless of whether you think they are right or wrong, the whole thing has the air about it of a surly teenager who berates his parents and then 5 minutes later asks for them to give him a ride.

    People around her often (rightly) complain about who/whom on the left, but I get the feeling that in some topsy turvy universe where the situation was reversed (e.g. the Polish "populist" urge was to let in even more refugees and the EU was telling them to put on the brakes) that "populism" wouldn't be so popular around here. Ultimately what everyone want is for other folks to agree with their positions - there are no real principles of "democracy" attached to this

    People around her often (rightly) complain about who/whom on the left, but I get the feeling that in some topsy turvy universe where the situation was reversed (e.g. the Polish “populist” urge was to let in even more refugees and the EU was telling them to put on the brakes) that “populism” wouldn’t be so popular around here.

    Such a thing cannot be a “populist urge”.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    Sure it can, once the newcomers outnumber the natives. Look at Lebanon, which, after its precipitous decline from ~80% to ~35% Christian, has experienced various "populist urges" to take in more Palestinian and, lately, more Syrian refugees. Or the US, where jurisdictions declare themselves "sanctuaries" shortly after becoming "majority-minority." (Malibu's somewhat ahead of the curve).
  130. @ben tillman

    People around her often (rightly) complain about who/whom on the left, but I get the feeling that in some topsy turvy universe where the situation was reversed (e.g. the Polish “populist” urge was to let in even more refugees and the EU was telling them to put on the brakes) that “populism” wouldn’t be so popular around here.
     
    Such a thing cannot be a "populist urge".

    Sure it can, once the newcomers outnumber the natives. Look at Lebanon, which, after its precipitous decline from ~80% to ~35% Christian, has experienced various “populist urges” to take in more Palestinian and, lately, more Syrian refugees. Or the US, where jurisdictions declare themselves “sanctuaries” shortly after becoming “majority-minority.” (Malibu’s somewhat ahead of the curve).

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    which, after its precipitous decline from ~80% to ~35%

    It 'declined' from 80% to 54% (where it stood at the time of the 1932 census) because the French mandatory got the idea in its head that Lebanon needed more territory and population to be 'viable', so they added a mess of territory in the Bekaa Vallley, in the north, on the coasts, and in the far south that was mixed but generally Muslim-majority. Lebanese Christians also had comparatively lower rates of increase (something they shared with Christians in Israel), in part due to high rates of emigration. The erection of UNRWA camps in Lebanon began in the 1940s when the place had a Christian majority. The patronage system agreed to by Lebanese political grandees in 1943 guaranteed Christians a majority of seats in conciliar bodies and the presidency, w/o regard to their share of the population. The system wasn't renegotiated until after 1990.
  131. @snorlax
    Sure it can, once the newcomers outnumber the natives. Look at Lebanon, which, after its precipitous decline from ~80% to ~35% Christian, has experienced various "populist urges" to take in more Palestinian and, lately, more Syrian refugees. Or the US, where jurisdictions declare themselves "sanctuaries" shortly after becoming "majority-minority." (Malibu's somewhat ahead of the curve).

    which, after its precipitous decline from ~80% to ~35%

    It ‘declined’ from 80% to 54% (where it stood at the time of the 1932 census) because the French mandatory got the idea in its head that Lebanon needed more territory and population to be ‘viable’, so they added a mess of territory in the Bekaa Vallley, in the north, on the coasts, and in the far south that was mixed but generally Muslim-majority. Lebanese Christians also had comparatively lower rates of increase (something they shared with Christians in Israel), in part due to high rates of emigration. The erection of UNRWA camps in Lebanon began in the 1940s when the place had a Christian majority. The patronage system agreed to by Lebanese political grandees in 1943 guaranteed Christians a majority of seats in conciliar bodies and the presidency, w/o regard to their share of the population. The system wasn’t renegotiated until after 1990.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    This is why people find you irritating, where you adopt this know-it-all tone and raise these weird pedantic quibbles, which in this instance are more non-sequiturs since they in no way contradict what I just said, and which in their particulars reflect more your idiosyncratic weltanschauung than your Knowledge of it All.

    It ‘declined’ from 80% to 54% (where it stood at the time of the 1932 census) because the French mandatory got the idea in its head that Lebanon needed more territory...
     
    And if the US annexed Mexico tomorrow, the result would be a large decline in the non-Hispanic white share of the population. Your point being?

    Lebanese Christians also had comparatively lower rates of increase (something they shared with Christians in Israel), in part due to high rates of emigration.
     
    Yes, that is the sort of thing people think of when one says a subpopulation is declining in number.

    If you reply to this by pointing out that actually the Lebanese Christian population went up, in absolute terms, the Fonz will jump an endowed professor of marine biology.

    The erection of UNRWA camps in Lebanon began in the 1940s when the place had a Christian majority.
     
    They didn't have much of a choice in the matter, southern Lebanon was under Israeli occupation at the time. Even so, most of the 1948 arrivals were Christians, the largest Muslim influx arrived in 1970 when Jordan kicked them out.

    The patronage system agreed to by Lebanese political grandees in 1943 guaranteed Christians a majority of seats in conciliar bodies...
     
    "Seats in conciliar bodies," etc, bear about as much relevance to the persons and entities who hold power in Lebanon, and the ways in which they wield it, as the UN does to the governance of Earth. Which is to say, not none, but close to it, and always at some external entity's behest.

    The system wasn’t renegotiated until after 1990.
     
    Actually, I think you might recall that the country underwent a rather forceful round of "renegotiations" for approx the preceding decade-and-a-half, and lower-intensity renegotiations remain ongoing, as they have for the last 6,000 years or thereabouts.
  132. @Art Deco
    And, by the way, where are Art Deco and Tyrion 2 to assure us that these are just the disjointed ramblings of has-beens who have no influence? After all, who is Robert Kagan anyway, or his wife Victoria Nuland? Nobodies!

    Nuland was a foreign service officer. She wasn't extensively educated (BA from Brown), and doesn't seem to have had any field postings, but to have prospered on networking at headquarters. She was a subcabinet officer for three years. (Alan Keyes, who seems to cause you no agita, was also a subcabinet officer). Lewis Amselem (Diplomad 2.0), who had more than three decades in the Foreign Service, offered the opinion that she was incompetent.

    Both Nuland and her husband are drawing salaries at think tanks. Their influence is a function of what people make of the working papers they produce.

    Both Nuland and her husband are drawing salaries at think tanks. Their influence is a function of what people make of the working papers they produce.

    ……………..and whom they talk to at cocktail parties, and who’s ears they whisper into in the mens room (I’m including Victoria Nuland here), etc.

    From Kagan’s Wiki-page:

    In 1997, Kagan co-founded the now-defunct neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century with William Kristol.[3][5][11] Through the work of the PNAC, from 1998, Kagan was an early and strong advocate of military action to “remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power”.[12][13] The US achieved that goal in 2003, through the Iraq war.

    From 1998 until August, 2010, Kagan was a Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He was appointed senior fellow in the Center on United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution in September 2010.[14][15][16][17] He is also a member of the board of directors for the neoconservative think tank The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).[18]

    During the 2008 presidential campaign he served as foreign policy advisor to John McCain, the Republican Party’s nominee for President of the United States in the 2008 election.[19][20]

    Since 2011, Kagan has also served on the 25-member State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board under Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton[21] and John Kerry.[22]

    Does that sound like somebody who is uninfluential?

    From Victoria Nuland’s Wikipage:

    “During the Bill Clinton administration, Nuland was chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott before moving on to serve as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs.

    She served as the principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and then as U.S. ambassador to NATO.

    Nuland became special envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and then became State Department spokesperson in summer 2011.[7]

    She was nominated to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in May 2013 and sworn in to fill that role in September 2013.

    Does that sound like somebody who is uninfluential?

    You are a liar.

    Idiot.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Project for a New American Century wasn't a think tank. It was an advocacy group which employed four people. It's been defunct for about 15 years now.

    You should find a less silly obsession than doing nose counts of DC patronage mills.
  133. @Art Deco
    which, after its precipitous decline from ~80% to ~35%

    It 'declined' from 80% to 54% (where it stood at the time of the 1932 census) because the French mandatory got the idea in its head that Lebanon needed more territory and population to be 'viable', so they added a mess of territory in the Bekaa Vallley, in the north, on the coasts, and in the far south that was mixed but generally Muslim-majority. Lebanese Christians also had comparatively lower rates of increase (something they shared with Christians in Israel), in part due to high rates of emigration. The erection of UNRWA camps in Lebanon began in the 1940s when the place had a Christian majority. The patronage system agreed to by Lebanese political grandees in 1943 guaranteed Christians a majority of seats in conciliar bodies and the presidency, w/o regard to their share of the population. The system wasn't renegotiated until after 1990.

    This is why people find you irritating, where you adopt this know-it-all tone and raise these weird pedantic quibbles, which in this instance are more non-sequiturs since they in no way contradict what I just said, and which in their particulars reflect more your idiosyncratic weltanschauung than your Knowledge of it All.

    It ‘declined’ from 80% to 54% (where it stood at the time of the 1932 census) because the French mandatory got the idea in its head that Lebanon needed more territory…

    And if the US annexed Mexico tomorrow, the result would be a large decline in the non-Hispanic white share of the population. Your point being?

    Lebanese Christians also had comparatively lower rates of increase (something they shared with Christians in Israel), in part due to high rates of emigration.

    Yes, that is the sort of thing people think of when one says a subpopulation is declining in number.

    If you reply to this by pointing out that actually the Lebanese Christian population went up, in absolute terms, the Fonz will jump an endowed professor of marine biology.

    The erection of UNRWA camps in Lebanon began in the 1940s when the place had a Christian majority.

    They didn’t have much of a choice in the matter, southern Lebanon was under Israeli occupation at the time. Even so, most of the 1948 arrivals were Christians, the largest Muslim influx arrived in 1970 when Jordan kicked them out.

    The patronage system agreed to by Lebanese political grandees in 1943 guaranteed Christians a majority of seats in conciliar bodies…

    “Seats in conciliar bodies,” etc, bear about as much relevance to the persons and entities who hold power in Lebanon, and the ways in which they wield it, as the UN does to the governance of Earth. Which is to say, not none, but close to it, and always at some external entity’s behest.

    The system wasn’t renegotiated until after 1990.

    Actually, I think you might recall that the country underwent a rather forceful round of “renegotiations” for approx the preceding decade-and-a-half, and lower-intensity renegotiations remain ongoing, as they have for the last 6,000 years or thereabouts.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    They didn’t have much of a choice in the matter, southern Lebanon was under Israeli occupation at the time.

    Southern Lebanon was not under Israeli occupation in 1949.
    , @Art Deco
    This is why people find you irritating, where you adopt this know-it-all tone

    No, people find me irritating because I take exception to their B.S.
    , @Anonymous
    Daresay you have figured Art out pretty well.
    I skip his posts and the iSteve experience improves.
  134. @Art Deco
    I have a suspicion both you and Mr. Gruskos have assessments of the Hungarian government which are valid between your ears and nowhere else. Have fun pulling on eachother's braids.

    I am sure you are quite the expert on Hungary, sitting in the US, speaking no foreign languages and pulling statistics from World Bank fact books.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Art Deco is an expert on everything. He's a librarian!
    , @Art Deco
    I am sure you are quite the expert on Hungary, sitting in the US, speaking no foreign languages and pulling statistics from World Bank fact books.


    The only person whose job it is to substantiate your ass-pulls is you.
  135. @Felix...

    Orban is basically just interested in maximizing his own personal utility. It is sad how many “populists” just use talk of nationalism to distract people while they and their cronies rob the country blind. Orban doesn’t have a sincere nationalist bone in his body. It is nice that Orban is keeping immigrants out, of a country that is happy enough to export its rapidly breeding gypsy population to the West. Orban is clever – he is very careful not to push the West too far, and he never will. But he knows exactly how far he can go, and does.
     
    Sounds like a perfectly fair bargain to me. In the West politicians and their cronies (or I should say the cronies and their politicians) rob the country blind AND flood it with immigrants.

    Now, I do not actually know whether it is true that Orban is impoverishing Hungary in the process of making himself wealthy. Obviously if he is, it would be better if he wasn't. But whether he truly is a nationalist or is carrying out a nationalist agenda out of pure political convenience is completely irrelevant. So long as he is carrying out the will of the people, what does it matter what his personal opinions on the topic might be? The concept underlying representative democracy is that elected officials act as surrogates of the electorate, not as free-spirits out to self actualize their personal beliefs while the population watches the spectacle with bated breath and fingers crossed so see what the crazy bastard might do next.

    I do not actually know whether it is true that Orban is impoverishing Hungary in the process of making himself wealthy.

    He’s not. I’ll give him credit, he is a master at grabbing EU funds, and he has encouraged a lot of foreign investment. So you can, and a lot of Hungarians do, excuse the way he enriches himself and his cronies. My point was to contrast Hungary with Poland. Poland, like the Czech Republic, has sustainable economic growth with native industries and native entrepreneurs. Hungary has relatively little domestic controlled industry. The country has a lot of good jobs in car manufacturing, retail, electronics, and chemicals, but all controlled by foreigners. Hungarians get paid well to work for Asians and Westerners, but how sustainable is that long term?

  136. @LondonBob
    Marshall Fund was a better choice than Goldman Fund, also implies some connection to the US government.

    Is it just me or does it feel we are entering the climatic stage of a life and death struggle, it certainly seems others see it that way?

    Consider that it may be just a climax of population growth before a population collapse, and that life will still be life for people who survive with the same struggles going on. Doubtless, there will be technological wonders that will change the shape of the challenges and, hopefully, some lessons learned, but life will go on.

    The “life or death” meme is what has got people so overwrought. People talk about doom for the planet or humanity while it’s really just population dynamics. People can’t seem to get in their heads that natural laws apply to us.

  137. @Peter Akuleyev
    I am sure you are quite the expert on Hungary, sitting in the US, speaking no foreign languages and pulling statistics from World Bank fact books.

    Art Deco is an expert on everything. He’s a librarian!

  138. @CCZ
    Slightly OT, but somewhat related, as Gomer would have said, “Surprise, Surprise!!”

    Putin is getting slammed for saying Jews might have interfered in the US election.

    President Vladimir Putin of Russia elicited sharp blow-back when he claimed that even though individuals with Russian citizenship may have worked to interfere in the 2016 US elections, they may not actually have been Russian because of their Jewish faith.

    Putin made the remarks during a long interview with NBC News host Megyn Kelly that aired on Saturday. Putin claimed that even though the individuals could have had Russian citizenship, they might not have been Russian after all.

    "Maybe they're not even Russians," Putin said. "Maybe they're Ukrainian, Tatars, Jews — just with Russian citizenship."

    "President Putin bizarrely has resorted to the blame game by pointing the finger at Jews and other minorities in his country," Anti-Defamation League chief executive Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement. "It is deeply disturbing to see the Russian president giving new life to classic anti-Semitic stereotypes that have plagued his country for hundreds of years.

    Business Insider, March 11, 2018
     
    And he didn't even mention AIPAC!!

    Putin’s enemies 0f course pounced on this by distorting his words – he mentions Jews on a list of other nationalities – it wasn’t as if he was mentioning Jews specifically. Part of this is the different understanding of nationality vs citizenship in Russia vs. the US. In America, everyone is “American” but in Russia, Jews are considered to be a separate ethnic group just like Armenians, Georgians, etc. and are distinct from “Russians” even though they all may have Russian citizenship. So in Russia if you say “a Russian did this” it means a person of Russian ethnicity and not a Ukrainian, Tatar, Jew, etc. That was Putin’s point but it sails completely over the head of Americans because Americans don’t look at nationality that way .

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @snorlax
    In fact, the Russian language has two words, россиянин ("Russian citizen") and русский ("ethnic Russian"), both of which are typically translated into English as just "Russian," which can introduce ambiguity. I'm guessing that Putin said "русские," not "россияне," in the original quote.
    , @3g4me
    @ 138 Jack D: " So in Russia if you say “a Russian did this” it means a person of Russian ethnicity and not a Ukrainian, Tatar, Jew, etc. That was Putin’s point but it sails completely over the head of Americans because Americans don’t look at nationality that way ."

    Actually, Americans most certainly did look at nationality that way up until WWII. Check old ship manifests or census records or newspaper articles. The vast majority of Italians from the south specifically listed their commune, or "south Italy." Jews were generally listed with "Hebrew" as their nationality, not Russian or Polish. Immigrants referred to themselves by their ethnicity then, just as they do now, regardless of magic papers. Most non-Whites here today only assert they are "American" when attempting to refute an evil notsee who has noticed they don't belong in America. All other times they are joyfully engaged in what Steve likes to call the "flight from White," which is really the mere recognition of racial and ethnic and national reality. Magic dirt and magic papers aren't, nor do jeans and burgers make the corner Han immigrants an all-American family.

    Nationality refers to national identity as distinct from legal citizenship. It's only since "nation of immigrants" and "melting pot" retconning that Americans have been taught the two are one and the same. And, of course, our totally 'American' media aides and abets their brethren by noting that "a New Jersey man," who happened to be a Mexican or Lebanese national resident in New Jersey, committed the crime du jour.
  139. @Jack D
    Putin's enemies 0f course pounced on this by distorting his words - he mentions Jews on a list of other nationalities - it wasn't as if he was mentioning Jews specifically. Part of this is the different understanding of nationality vs citizenship in Russia vs. the US. In America, everyone is "American" but in Russia, Jews are considered to be a separate ethnic group just like Armenians, Georgians, etc. and are distinct from "Russians" even though they all may have Russian citizenship. So in Russia if you say "a Russian did this" it means a person of Russian ethnicity and not a Ukrainian, Tatar, Jew, etc. That was Putin's point but it sails completely over the head of Americans because Americans don't look at nationality that way .

    In fact, the Russian language has two words, россиянин (“Russian citizen”) and русский (“ethnic Russian”), both of which are typically translated into English as just “Russian,” which can introduce ambiguity. I’m guessing that Putin said “русские,” not “россияне,” in the original quote.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    Although, my understanding is that (and native speakers please correct if I'm misremembering), in colloquial usage "русский" is also often used to mean "Russian citizen," while "россиянин" is seen as a somewhat "politically-correct" term. But my understanding is also that Putin is careful to stick to politically-correct conventions when discussing ethnic topics, and, besides, "ethnic Russian" is the definition that makes sense in context.
  140. @snorlax
    In fact, the Russian language has two words, россиянин ("Russian citizen") and русский ("ethnic Russian"), both of which are typically translated into English as just "Russian," which can introduce ambiguity. I'm guessing that Putin said "русские," not "россияне," in the original quote.

    Although, my understanding is that (and native speakers please correct if I’m misremembering), in colloquial usage “русский” is also often used to mean “Russian citizen,” while “россиянин” is seen as a somewhat “politically-correct” term. But my understanding is also that Putin is careful to stick to politically-correct conventions when discussing ethnic topics, and, besides, “ethnic Russian” is the definition that makes sense in context.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Thanks for the clarifications. Turns out it's essentially yet another example of MSM 'fake news' with--as usual--a trivial amount of 'plausible deniability' thrown in.
  141. @Mr. Anon

    Both Nuland and her husband are drawing salaries at think tanks. Their influence is a function of what people make of the working papers they produce.
     
    .................and whom they talk to at cocktail parties, and who's ears they whisper into in the mens room (I'm including Victoria Nuland here), etc.

    From Kagan's Wiki-page:


    In 1997, Kagan co-founded the now-defunct neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century with William Kristol.[3][5][11] Through the work of the PNAC, from 1998, Kagan was an early and strong advocate of military action to "remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power".[12][13] The US achieved that goal in 2003, through the Iraq war.

    From 1998 until August, 2010, Kagan was a Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He was appointed senior fellow in the Center on United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution in September 2010.[14][15][16][17] He is also a member of the board of directors for the neoconservative think tank The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).[18]

    During the 2008 presidential campaign he served as foreign policy advisor to John McCain, the Republican Party's nominee for President of the United States in the 2008 election.[19][20]

    Since 2011, Kagan has also served on the 25-member State Department's Foreign Affairs Policy Board under Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton[21] and John Kerry.[22]
     

    Does that sound like somebody who is uninfluential?

    From Victoria Nuland's Wikipage:


    "During the Bill Clinton administration, Nuland was chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott before moving on to serve as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs.

    She served as the principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and then as U.S. ambassador to NATO.

    Nuland became special envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and then became State Department spokesperson in summer 2011.[7]

    She was nominated to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in May 2013 and sworn in to fill that role in September 2013.
     

    Does that sound like somebody who is uninfluential?

    You are a liar.

    Idiot.

    Project for a New American Century wasn’t a think tank. It was an advocacy group which employed four people. It’s been defunct for about 15 years now.

    You should find a less silly obsession than doing nose counts of DC patronage mills.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Project for a New American Century wasn’t a think tank. It was an advocacy group which employed four people. It’s been defunct for about 15 years now.
     
    It sure did enough damage while it was around, though, didn't it? And - gosh - you mentioned one thing. How about the CFR? Is it no longer around? The State Department? No longer around. I quote a list of a whole bunch of positions those two have held - Undersecretary of State, Adviser to Secretaries of State, Senators (and presidential candidates), and you pick one that is no longer operative. Typical behavior from the dishonest asshat known as "Art Deco".
  142. @Peter Akuleyev
    I am sure you are quite the expert on Hungary, sitting in the US, speaking no foreign languages and pulling statistics from World Bank fact books.

    I am sure you are quite the expert on Hungary, sitting in the US, speaking no foreign languages and pulling statistics from World Bank fact books.

    The only person whose job it is to substantiate your ass-pulls is you.

  143. @snorlax
    This is why people find you irritating, where you adopt this know-it-all tone and raise these weird pedantic quibbles, which in this instance are more non-sequiturs since they in no way contradict what I just said, and which in their particulars reflect more your idiosyncratic weltanschauung than your Knowledge of it All.

    It ‘declined’ from 80% to 54% (where it stood at the time of the 1932 census) because the French mandatory got the idea in its head that Lebanon needed more territory...
     
    And if the US annexed Mexico tomorrow, the result would be a large decline in the non-Hispanic white share of the population. Your point being?

    Lebanese Christians also had comparatively lower rates of increase (something they shared with Christians in Israel), in part due to high rates of emigration.
     
    Yes, that is the sort of thing people think of when one says a subpopulation is declining in number.

    If you reply to this by pointing out that actually the Lebanese Christian population went up, in absolute terms, the Fonz will jump an endowed professor of marine biology.

    The erection of UNRWA camps in Lebanon began in the 1940s when the place had a Christian majority.
     
    They didn't have much of a choice in the matter, southern Lebanon was under Israeli occupation at the time. Even so, most of the 1948 arrivals were Christians, the largest Muslim influx arrived in 1970 when Jordan kicked them out.

    The patronage system agreed to by Lebanese political grandees in 1943 guaranteed Christians a majority of seats in conciliar bodies...
     
    "Seats in conciliar bodies," etc, bear about as much relevance to the persons and entities who hold power in Lebanon, and the ways in which they wield it, as the UN does to the governance of Earth. Which is to say, not none, but close to it, and always at some external entity's behest.

    The system wasn’t renegotiated until after 1990.
     
    Actually, I think you might recall that the country underwent a rather forceful round of "renegotiations" for approx the preceding decade-and-a-half, and lower-intensity renegotiations remain ongoing, as they have for the last 6,000 years or thereabouts.

    They didn’t have much of a choice in the matter, southern Lebanon was under Israeli occupation at the time.

    Southern Lebanon was not under Israeli occupation in 1949.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    Again with the pseudo-pedantic non-sequiturs! It was under Israeli occupation in 1948, which was when the first wave of Palestinian refugees arrived. Once they were there, they were stuck with them; Israel certainly wouldn’t take them back, Syria almost certainly wouldn’t take them either, and in general they were constrained from choosing any course of action that might offend Muslims or Syria, for very much the same reasons that Singapore votes for every anti-Israel UN resolution, or that Solzhenitsyn’s books were banned in Finland.
  144. @snorlax
    This is why people find you irritating, where you adopt this know-it-all tone and raise these weird pedantic quibbles, which in this instance are more non-sequiturs since they in no way contradict what I just said, and which in their particulars reflect more your idiosyncratic weltanschauung than your Knowledge of it All.

    It ‘declined’ from 80% to 54% (where it stood at the time of the 1932 census) because the French mandatory got the idea in its head that Lebanon needed more territory...
     
    And if the US annexed Mexico tomorrow, the result would be a large decline in the non-Hispanic white share of the population. Your point being?

    Lebanese Christians also had comparatively lower rates of increase (something they shared with Christians in Israel), in part due to high rates of emigration.
     
    Yes, that is the sort of thing people think of when one says a subpopulation is declining in number.

    If you reply to this by pointing out that actually the Lebanese Christian population went up, in absolute terms, the Fonz will jump an endowed professor of marine biology.

    The erection of UNRWA camps in Lebanon began in the 1940s when the place had a Christian majority.
     
    They didn't have much of a choice in the matter, southern Lebanon was under Israeli occupation at the time. Even so, most of the 1948 arrivals were Christians, the largest Muslim influx arrived in 1970 when Jordan kicked them out.

    The patronage system agreed to by Lebanese political grandees in 1943 guaranteed Christians a majority of seats in conciliar bodies...
     
    "Seats in conciliar bodies," etc, bear about as much relevance to the persons and entities who hold power in Lebanon, and the ways in which they wield it, as the UN does to the governance of Earth. Which is to say, not none, but close to it, and always at some external entity's behest.

    The system wasn’t renegotiated until after 1990.
     
    Actually, I think you might recall that the country underwent a rather forceful round of "renegotiations" for approx the preceding decade-and-a-half, and lower-intensity renegotiations remain ongoing, as they have for the last 6,000 years or thereabouts.

    This is why people find you irritating, where you adopt this know-it-all tone

    No, people find me irritating because I take exception to their B.S.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @snorlax
    Nah, I’d really have to say the pseudo-pedantic non-sequitur shtick is why even those of us (e.g. myself, Peter, Jack) who are reasonably simpatico with your POV nevertheless find you insufferable. But then, what do I know? Certainly not It All.

    I’m curious, can you point out exactly where the BS appears in this comment, and how exactly it’s exception-worthy? Enlighten me, O Sage, O Great Googler, O Alumnus of University.
  145. @Art Deco
    They didn’t have much of a choice in the matter, southern Lebanon was under Israeli occupation at the time.

    Southern Lebanon was not under Israeli occupation in 1949.

    Again with the pseudo-pedantic non-sequiturs! It was under Israeli occupation in 1948, which was when the first wave of Palestinian refugees arrived. Once they were there, they were stuck with them; Israel certainly wouldn’t take them back, Syria almost certainly wouldn’t take them either, and in general they were constrained from choosing any course of action that might offend Muslims or Syria, for very much the same reasons that Singapore votes for every anti-Israel UN resolution, or that Solzhenitsyn’s books were banned in Finland.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    https://mondediplo.com/maps/middleeast1948

    It wasn't under occupation then, either. The 1948-49 war was fought in Mandatory Palestine, not in the surrounding territories.
  146. @Art Deco
    This is why people find you irritating, where you adopt this know-it-all tone

    No, people find me irritating because I take exception to their B.S.

    Nah, I’d really have to say the pseudo-pedantic non-sequitur shtick is why even those of us (e.g. myself, Peter, Jack) who are reasonably simpatico with your POV nevertheless find you insufferable. But then, what do I know? Certainly not It All.

    I’m curious, can you point out exactly where the BS appears in this comment, and how exactly it’s exception-worthy? Enlighten me, O Sage, O Great Googler, O Alumnus of University.

    • Agree: Jack Hanson
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    I assume you're referring to Jack D but your first paragraph is spot on.
  147. @snorlax
    Again with the pseudo-pedantic non-sequiturs! It was under Israeli occupation in 1948, which was when the first wave of Palestinian refugees arrived. Once they were there, they were stuck with them; Israel certainly wouldn’t take them back, Syria almost certainly wouldn’t take them either, and in general they were constrained from choosing any course of action that might offend Muslims or Syria, for very much the same reasons that Singapore votes for every anti-Israel UN resolution, or that Solzhenitsyn’s books were banned in Finland.

    https://mondediplo.com/maps/middleeast1948

    It wasn’t under occupation then, either. The 1948-49 war was fought in Mandatory Palestine, not in the surrounding territories.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    Many internet know-it-alls find consulting Wikipedia a useful step in their process.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli–Lebanese_conflict

    The Lebanese army joined the other Arab armies in the invasion. It crossed into the northern Galilee. By the end of the conflict, however, it had been repulsed by Israeli forces, which occupied South Lebanon. Israel signed armistice agreements with each of its invading neighbors. The armistice with Lebanon was signed on 23 March 1949.[20] As part of the agreement with Lebanon, Israeli forces withdrew to the international border.
     
  148. @Art Deco
    https://mondediplo.com/maps/middleeast1948

    It wasn't under occupation then, either. The 1948-49 war was fought in Mandatory Palestine, not in the surrounding territories.

    Many internet know-it-alls find consulting Wikipedia a useful step in their process.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli–Lebanese_conflict

    The Lebanese army joined the other Arab armies in the invasion. It crossed into the northern Galilee. By the end of the conflict, however, it had been repulsed by Israeli forces, which occupied South Lebanon. Israel signed armistice agreements with each of its invading neighbors. The armistice with Lebanon was signed on 23 March 1949.[20] As part of the agreement with Lebanon, Israeli forces withdrew to the international border.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements#With_Lebanon

    If Wikipedia suits you, you'll find this:


    "Israel withdrew its forces from 13 villages in Lebanese territory, which were occupied during the war."

    IOW, it withdrew from a narrow strip of territory on the border with a 4 or 5 digit population. None of the refugee camps established in Lebanon in 1948 or 1949 were located on the border, so it's immaterial there there were Haganah troops there for x months in late 1948 and early 1949.
  149. @snorlax
    Many internet know-it-alls find consulting Wikipedia a useful step in their process.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli–Lebanese_conflict

    The Lebanese army joined the other Arab armies in the invasion. It crossed into the northern Galilee. By the end of the conflict, however, it had been repulsed by Israeli forces, which occupied South Lebanon. Israel signed armistice agreements with each of its invading neighbors. The armistice with Lebanon was signed on 23 March 1949.[20] As part of the agreement with Lebanon, Israeli forces withdrew to the international border.
     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements#With_Lebanon

    If Wikipedia suits you, you’ll find this:

    “Israel withdrew its forces from 13 villages in Lebanese territory, which were occupied during the war.”

    IOW, it withdrew from a narrow strip of territory on the border with a 4 or 5 digit population. None of the refugee camps established in Lebanon in 1948 or 1949 were located on the border, so it’s immaterial there there were Haganah troops there for x months in late 1948 and early 1949.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    By all means, keep digging. The point is it’s rather hard to secure your border when said border is under hostile foreign occupation.

    http://www.meforum.org/352/israels-south-lebanon-imbroglio

    During the 1948-49 war, combat along the Lebanese-Israeli border was short-lived, and Israeli strategists saw the Lebanese goal as primarily stemming the flight of Palestinian Arab refugees into Lebanon.
     
  150. @Art Deco
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements#With_Lebanon

    If Wikipedia suits you, you'll find this:


    "Israel withdrew its forces from 13 villages in Lebanese territory, which were occupied during the war."

    IOW, it withdrew from a narrow strip of territory on the border with a 4 or 5 digit population. None of the refugee camps established in Lebanon in 1948 or 1949 were located on the border, so it's immaterial there there were Haganah troops there for x months in late 1948 and early 1949.

    By all means, keep digging. The point is it’s rather hard to secure your border when said border is under hostile foreign occupation.

    http://www.meforum.org/352/israels-south-lebanon-imbroglio

    During the 1948-49 war, combat along the Lebanese-Israeli border was short-lived, and Israeli strategists saw the Lebanese goal as primarily stemming the flight of Palestinian Arab refugees into Lebanon.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    By all means, keep digging. The point is it’s rather hard to secure your border when said border is under hostile foreign occupation.

    No, that's not your point, that's your latest parry. Lebanon didn't have refugee camps because they were 'occupied'. Nor did they have them because the southern part of the country was 'occupied'. Nor did they have them because the Haganah held some Lebanese villages. They had them because they allowed the UN to set them up (around Beirut, mostly, which is nowhere near the border).
  151. @Art Deco
    Jews need to be shamed for their totalitarian leanings,

    There are about two dozen countries in the world which have had electoral institutions continuously in operation since 1922 (periods of foreign occupation excepted). One of them is apparently shot through with totalitarians. I take it New York and Miami are hell on Earth too.

    @123 Art Deco: ” I take it New York and Miami are hell on Earth too.”

    I think that’s a fair assessment – they’re both loud, filthy, filled with diversity, and occupying space the rightfully belongs to Americans.

  152. @TomSchmidt
    It doesn't mean "rule by the people." It means "rule by the Deme," one of the 10 or 12 tribes of Athens. Periodically power would rotate to a different deme. Socrates makes mention in The Apology about how he was the leader of his Deme when his Deme rotated into power, I think at the time of Alcibiades.

    So in a real sense, Kagan is correct. What you think of as democracy literally is populism, rule by ALL the people.

    Duh? Wuh?

    I have never heard of this new model etymology, nor about a rotating power structure.

    Any sources besides “olinrevelation.org”?

    After all, it is “demo-kratia” not “demes-kratia” (whereby it must be said that the “demos” are definitely not “everyone” but the ones which are free and have the land/money/status that goes with it)

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    MAy have been an over enthusiastic Greek teacher of mine. The tribes were Phylai that were composed of Demes, as seen from:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deme

    The Deme was a decentralized, practically self-ruling sub-polis with Athens. The rule by successive tribes was a feature of Athenian democracy, if Socrates is to be believed in The Apology, but those tribes were composed of people from Demes, not Demes themselves.

    Thanks for the chance to investigate a bit further.
    , @TomSchmidt
    Little more:

    "Another meaning of Demos, to the Athenians, was “People,” as in the People of Athens, the body of citizens collectively. So a young man was enrolled in his “demos” (deme), and thus became a member of the “Demos” (the People). As a member of the Demos, this young man could participate in the Assembly of Citizens that was the central institution of the democracy. The Greek word for “Assembly” is ekklesia (ἐκκλησία), but the Athenians generally referred to it as the “Demos.”"
    , @TomSchmidt
    Last note: Kagan is very much in favor of Athenian-style democracy where one tribe is in control of power, not the whole of the people. One tribe might get the whole nation embroiled in war, with bad consequences as Socrates points out.
  153. @snorlax
    By all means, keep digging. The point is it’s rather hard to secure your border when said border is under hostile foreign occupation.

    http://www.meforum.org/352/israels-south-lebanon-imbroglio

    During the 1948-49 war, combat along the Lebanese-Israeli border was short-lived, and Israeli strategists saw the Lebanese goal as primarily stemming the flight of Palestinian Arab refugees into Lebanon.
     

    By all means, keep digging. The point is it’s rather hard to secure your border when said border is under hostile foreign occupation.

    No, that’s not your point, that’s your latest parry. Lebanon didn’t have refugee camps because they were ‘occupied’. Nor did they have them because the southern part of the country was ‘occupied’. Nor did they have them because the Haganah held some Lebanese villages. They had them because they allowed the UN to set them up (around Beirut, mostly, which is nowhere near the border).

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  154. @Jack D
    Putin's enemies 0f course pounced on this by distorting his words - he mentions Jews on a list of other nationalities - it wasn't as if he was mentioning Jews specifically. Part of this is the different understanding of nationality vs citizenship in Russia vs. the US. In America, everyone is "American" but in Russia, Jews are considered to be a separate ethnic group just like Armenians, Georgians, etc. and are distinct from "Russians" even though they all may have Russian citizenship. So in Russia if you say "a Russian did this" it means a person of Russian ethnicity and not a Ukrainian, Tatar, Jew, etc. That was Putin's point but it sails completely over the head of Americans because Americans don't look at nationality that way .

    @ 138 Jack D: ” So in Russia if you say “a Russian did this” it means a person of Russian ethnicity and not a Ukrainian, Tatar, Jew, etc. That was Putin’s point but it sails completely over the head of Americans because Americans don’t look at nationality that way .”

    Actually, Americans most certainly did look at nationality that way up until WWII. Check old ship manifests or census records or newspaper articles. The vast majority of Italians from the south specifically listed their commune, or “south Italy.” Jews were generally listed with “Hebrew” as their nationality, not Russian or Polish. Immigrants referred to themselves by their ethnicity then, just as they do now, regardless of magic papers. Most non-Whites here today only assert they are “American” when attempting to refute an evil notsee who has noticed they don’t belong in America. All other times they are joyfully engaged in what Steve likes to call the “flight from White,” which is really the mere recognition of racial and ethnic and national reality. Magic dirt and magic papers aren’t, nor do jeans and burgers make the corner Han immigrants an all-American family.

    Nationality refers to national identity as distinct from legal citizenship. It’s only since “nation of immigrants” and “melting pot” retconning that Americans have been taught the two are one and the same. And, of course, our totally ‘American’ media aides and abets their brethren by noting that “a New Jersey man,” who happened to be a Mexican or Lebanese national resident in New Jersey, committed the crime du jour.

  155. @snorlax
    Nah, I’d really have to say the pseudo-pedantic non-sequitur shtick is why even those of us (e.g. myself, Peter, Jack) who are reasonably simpatico with your POV nevertheless find you insufferable. But then, what do I know? Certainly not It All.

    I’m curious, can you point out exactly where the BS appears in this comment, and how exactly it’s exception-worthy? Enlighten me, O Sage, O Great Googler, O Alumnus of University.

    I assume you’re referring to Jack D but your first paragraph is spot on.

  156. @snorlax
    Although, my understanding is that (and native speakers please correct if I'm misremembering), in colloquial usage "русский" is also often used to mean "Russian citizen," while "россиянин" is seen as a somewhat "politically-correct" term. But my understanding is also that Putin is careful to stick to politically-correct conventions when discussing ethnic topics, and, besides, "ethnic Russian" is the definition that makes sense in context.

    Thanks for the clarifications. Turns out it’s essentially yet another example of MSM ‘fake news’ with–as usual–a trivial amount of ‘plausible deniability’ thrown in.

  157. @snorlax
    This is why people find you irritating, where you adopt this know-it-all tone and raise these weird pedantic quibbles, which in this instance are more non-sequiturs since they in no way contradict what I just said, and which in their particulars reflect more your idiosyncratic weltanschauung than your Knowledge of it All.

    It ‘declined’ from 80% to 54% (where it stood at the time of the 1932 census) because the French mandatory got the idea in its head that Lebanon needed more territory...
     
    And if the US annexed Mexico tomorrow, the result would be a large decline in the non-Hispanic white share of the population. Your point being?

    Lebanese Christians also had comparatively lower rates of increase (something they shared with Christians in Israel), in part due to high rates of emigration.
     
    Yes, that is the sort of thing people think of when one says a subpopulation is declining in number.

    If you reply to this by pointing out that actually the Lebanese Christian population went up, in absolute terms, the Fonz will jump an endowed professor of marine biology.

    The erection of UNRWA camps in Lebanon began in the 1940s when the place had a Christian majority.
     
    They didn't have much of a choice in the matter, southern Lebanon was under Israeli occupation at the time. Even so, most of the 1948 arrivals were Christians, the largest Muslim influx arrived in 1970 when Jordan kicked them out.

    The patronage system agreed to by Lebanese political grandees in 1943 guaranteed Christians a majority of seats in conciliar bodies...
     
    "Seats in conciliar bodies," etc, bear about as much relevance to the persons and entities who hold power in Lebanon, and the ways in which they wield it, as the UN does to the governance of Earth. Which is to say, not none, but close to it, and always at some external entity's behest.

    The system wasn’t renegotiated until after 1990.
     
    Actually, I think you might recall that the country underwent a rather forceful round of "renegotiations" for approx the preceding decade-and-a-half, and lower-intensity renegotiations remain ongoing, as they have for the last 6,000 years or thereabouts.

    Daresay you have figured Art out pretty well.
    I skip his posts and the iSteve experience improves.

  158. In this guy’s defense, I suspect he’s mostly talking less about countries like Romania and Hungary and more about Turkey, which really did shift from a mostly democratic system to a one-man autocracy in the last few years.

    I would say the UK is looking pretty un-democratic these days, and they’ll arrest you for having the wrong opinions.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Did he mention EU? Then he's worked up over EU members Poland and Hungary.

    The funny thing is that if one of our Hungarian commenters is correct, the Hungarian government could be denounced for corruption, but nobody cares about that these days.

  159. @tsotha
    In this guy's defense, I suspect he's mostly talking less about countries like Romania and Hungary and more about Turkey, which really did shift from a mostly democratic system to a one-man autocracy in the last few years.

    I would say the UK is looking pretty un-democratic these days, and they'll arrest you for having the wrong opinions.

    Did he mention EU? Then he’s worked up over EU members Poland and Hungary.

    The funny thing is that if one of our Hungarian commenters is correct, the Hungarian government could be denounced for corruption, but nobody cares about that these days.

  160. We’re still in the “ballots” stage. Voters still think they can vote to change the government. And we’re still prosperous enough to keep people away from “bullets.”

    “America is at that awkward stage; it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”

    I happen to disagree. America could fix all her problems with voting and other non-violent means. The problem with the school is the students; Americans are ignorant and apathetic and their heads have been crammed full of mush.

    With a name like “Kagan” the white nationalist anti-semites will no doubt try to turn this discussion into anti-Semite talking points. If you see this, report it to the authorities.

    Last sentence is too obvious. Better here to list a few more names and establish a pattern, then end with a call for shunning/banning/censorship.

  161. @El Dato
    Duh? Wuh?

    I have never heard of this new model etymology, nor about a rotating power structure.

    Any sources besides "olinrevelation.org"?

    After all, it is "demo-kratia" not "demes-kratia" (whereby it must be said that the "demos" are definitely not "everyone" but the ones which are free and have the land/money/status that goes with it)

    MAy have been an over enthusiastic Greek teacher of mine. The tribes were Phylai that were composed of Demes, as seen from:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deme

    The Deme was a decentralized, practically self-ruling sub-polis with Athens. The rule by successive tribes was a feature of Athenian democracy, if Socrates is to be believed in The Apology, but those tribes were composed of people from Demes, not Demes themselves.

    Thanks for the chance to investigate a bit further.

  162. Me, I think we’ve been far too permissive with guys with names like Kagan holding the reins and driving us over a cliff.

    Guys named “Kagan” pushing totalitarianism need to be shown roughly the same good time that guys named “Thurston Howell III” get for pushing the rebirth of the slave trade. America is far too polite to Jews. Jews don’t respect it, and they don’t do the noblesse oblige thing (except for groups that don’t threaten them, like blacks).

  163. @El Dato
    Duh? Wuh?

    I have never heard of this new model etymology, nor about a rotating power structure.

    Any sources besides "olinrevelation.org"?

    After all, it is "demo-kratia" not "demes-kratia" (whereby it must be said that the "demos" are definitely not "everyone" but the ones which are free and have the land/money/status that goes with it)

    Little more:

    “Another meaning of Demos, to the Athenians, was “People,” as in the People of Athens, the body of citizens collectively. So a young man was enrolled in his “demos” (deme), and thus became a member of the “Demos” (the People). As a member of the Demos, this young man could participate in the Assembly of Citizens that was the central institution of the democracy. The Greek word for “Assembly” is ekklesia (ἐκκλησία), but the Athenians generally referred to it as the “Demos.””

  164. @El Dato
    Duh? Wuh?

    I have never heard of this new model etymology, nor about a rotating power structure.

    Any sources besides "olinrevelation.org"?

    After all, it is "demo-kratia" not "demes-kratia" (whereby it must be said that the "demos" are definitely not "everyone" but the ones which are free and have the land/money/status that goes with it)

    Last note: Kagan is very much in favor of Athenian-style democracy where one tribe is in control of power, not the whole of the people. One tribe might get the whole nation embroiled in war, with bad consequences as Socrates points out.

  165. @Art Deco
    Project for a New American Century wasn't a think tank. It was an advocacy group which employed four people. It's been defunct for about 15 years now.

    You should find a less silly obsession than doing nose counts of DC patronage mills.

    Project for a New American Century wasn’t a think tank. It was an advocacy group which employed four people. It’s been defunct for about 15 years now.

    It sure did enough damage while it was around, though, didn’t it? And – gosh – you mentioned one thing. How about the CFR? Is it no longer around? The State Department? No longer around. I quote a list of a whole bunch of positions those two have held – Undersecretary of State, Adviser to Secretaries of State, Senators (and presidential candidates), and you pick one that is no longer operative. Typical behavior from the dishonest asshat known as “Art Deco”.

  166. It sure did enough damage while it was around, though, didn’t it?

    They circulated a chain letter.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    They circulated a chain letter.
     
    They undoubtedly did a lot more than that, you idiot. They know people you don't. They talk to people in circles you don't move in.

    Not everybody is an unimportant nobody like you are.

    , @Mr. Anon
    Signatories to PNAC's Statement of Principals included Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. Yeah, what did they ever do?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

    You are a stupid, dishonest nitwit.

    Idiot.
  167. @Art Deco
    It sure did enough damage while it was around, though, didn’t it?

    They circulated a chain letter.

    They circulated a chain letter.

    They undoubtedly did a lot more than that, you idiot. They know people you don’t. They talk to people in circles you don’t move in.

    Not everybody is an unimportant nobody like you are.

  168. @Art Deco
    It sure did enough damage while it was around, though, didn’t it?

    They circulated a chain letter.

    Signatories to PNAC’s Statement of Principals included Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. Yeah, what did they ever do?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

    You are a stupid, dishonest nitwit.

    Idiot.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Yeah, what did they ever do?

    Approximately what they would have done had they never heard of Wm. Kristol.
  169. @Mr. Anon
    Signatories to PNAC's Statement of Principals included Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. Yeah, what did they ever do?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

    You are a stupid, dishonest nitwit.

    Idiot.

    Yeah, what did they ever do?

    Approximately what they would have done had they never heard of Wm. Kristol.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Approximately what they would have done had they never heard of Wm. Kristol.
     
    They were PNAC, you dishonest nitwit. They lent their names to it. And yet you claim that PNAC was uninfluential.

    Stupid a**hole.
  170. @Art Deco
    Yeah, what did they ever do?

    Approximately what they would have done had they never heard of Wm. Kristol.

    Approximately what they would have done had they never heard of Wm. Kristol.

    They were PNAC, you dishonest nitwit. They lent their names to it. And yet you claim that PNAC was uninfluential.

    Stupid a**hole.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS