The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Pat Buchanan ArchiveBlogview
A Trump Doctrine -- 'America First'
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_398356141
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

However Donald Trump came upon the foreign policy views he espoused, they were as crucial to his election as his views on trade and the border.

Yet those views are hemlock to the GOP foreign policy elite and the liberal Democratic interventionists of the Acela Corridor.

Trump promised an “America First” foreign policy rooted in the national interest, not in nostalgia. The neocons insist that every Cold War and post-Cold War commitment be maintained, in perpetuity.

On Sunday’s “60 Minutes,” Trump said: “You know, we’ve been fighting this war for 15 years. … We’ve spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion — we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels … and our airports are … obsolete.”

Yet the War Party has not had enough of war, not nearly.

They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea.

They want to establish a no-fly zone and shoot down Syrian and Russian planes that violate it, acts of war Congress never authorized.

They want to trash the Iran nuclear deal, though all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies told us, with high confidence, in 2007 and 2011, Iran did not even have a nuclear weapons program.

Other hardliners want to face down Beijing over its claims to the reefs and rocks of the South China Sea, though our Manila ally is talking of tightening ties to China and kicking us out of Subic Bay.

In none of these places is there a U.S. vital interest so imperiled as to justify the kind of war the War Party would risk.

Trump has the opportunity to be the president who, like Harry Truman, redirected U.S. foreign policy for a generation.

After World War II, we awoke to find our wartime ally, Stalin, had emerged as a greater enemy than Germany or Japan. Stalin’s empire stretched from the Elbe to the Pacific.

In 1949, suddenly, he had the atom bomb, and China, the most populous nation on earth, had fallen to the armies of Mao Zedong.

As our situation was new, Truman acted anew. He adopted a George Kennan policy of containment of the world Communist empire, the Truman Doctrine, and sent an army to prevent South Korea from being overrun.

At the end of the Cold War, however, with the Soviet Empire history and the Soviet Union having disintegrated, George H.W. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W., invaded Iraq and preached a global crusade for democracy “to end tyranny in our world.”

A policy born of hubris.

Result: the Mideast disaster Trump described to Lesley Stahl, and constant confrontations with Russia caused by pushing our NATO alliance right up to and inside what had been Putin’s country.

How did we expect Russian patriots to react?

The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit, and to the vital interests of the United States.

What should Trump say?

ORDER IT NOW

“As our Cold War presidents from Truman to Reagan avoided World War III, I intend to avert Cold War II. We do not regard Russia or the Russian people as enemies of the United States, and we will work with President Putin to ease the tensions that have arisen between us.

“For our part, NATO expansion is over, and U.S. forces will not be deployed in any former republic of the Soviet Union.

“While Article 5 of NATO imposes an obligation to regard an attack upon any one of 28 nations as an attack on us all, in our Constitution, Congress, not some treaty dating back to before most Americans were even born, decides whether we go to war.

“The compulsive interventionism of recent decades is history. How nations govern themselves is their own business. While, as JFK said, we prefer democracies and republics to autocrats and dictators, we will base our attitude toward other nations upon their attitude toward us.

“No other nation’s internal affairs are a vital interest of ours.

“Europeans have to be awakened to reality. We are not going to be forever committed to fighting their wars. They are going to have to defend themselves, and that transition begins now.

“In Syria and Iraq, our enemies are al-Qaida and ISIS. We have no intention of bringing down the Assad regime, as that would open the door to Islamic terrorists. We have learned from Iraq and Libya.”

Then Trump should move expeditiously to lay out and fix the broad outlines of his foreign policy, which entails rebuilding our military while beginning the cancellation of war guarantees that have no connection to U.S. vital interests. We cannot continue to bankrupt ourselves to fight other countries’ wars or pay other countries’ bills.

The ideal time for such a declaration, a Trump Doctrine, is when the president-elect presents his secretaries of state and defense.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2016 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Donald Trump 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Pat, now more than ever, you should try to get in Trump’s cabinet, if you believe in what you write, before it is filled with neocons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pbuchanan/a-trump-doctrine-america-first/#comment-1651036
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. JL says:

    This doctrine is exactly what I want to hear and why I voted for Trump.

    Read More
  3. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Cold War is long over.

    EU has more people and bigger economy than the US.

    Yet, US is still leading NATO and ‘protecting’ EU?

    Protecting EU from what? Russia that has no intention of invading? As I recall, USSR not only let go of Warsaw Pact nations but broke apart into several republics. Russia has no will to retake the lost republics. Why would it invade EU?

    Beside, the threat to EU isn’t military(from the East) but migration from the south from Muslim and African nations. And EU’s main weakness isn’t lack of arms or means but lack of moral will to push back the mass invasion.

    It seems the real reason why the US doesn’t want to end NATO is it will restore European sovereignty, and that means EU will no longer be vassal of US. And that means it will no longer be vassals of Jewish Globalists since they rule the US.

    So, Jewish globalists don’t want to lose EU. NATO is no longer about defense of Europe but a net over Europe.

    But Europeans also fear that if US military departs and if EU must defend itself, the biggest power will be Germany. And Europeans don’t want Germany as biggest power again. Also, Germans themselves, after generations of holocaust guilt-indoctrination, are emotionally ill-prepared to play the role of leading military power in the EU.

    And even though US is a thorn on Russia’s side, even Russia might actually prefer US domination over EU than Germany as an independent resurgent military power.

    Of course, it’s all paranoid nonsense all around, but old habits die hard.

    On the other hand, given Merkel’s heavy-handed imperiousness toward Poland and Hungary over the refugee crisis, Teuton brutishness seems to be alive in some odd form.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    The confused back-and-forth of your very comment serves as an illustration of European problems. Yes, the US should stop babysitting Europe. I'm all for that. But that means Europeans, my cousins across the water, must wake up and decide who they are going to be.

    Your implicit claim that my country supports NATO and the defense of Europe for selfish reasons is only correct in one sense: If we had not done so for half-a-century, Europe would not have been able on its own to defend itself against the VERY REAL communist expansion emanating from the USSR. I'm sorry, but if not for the United States, there would have been nothing to stop that expansion.

    Europeans owe us a debt of gratitude. No preaching to us, please. We are ready to leave you alone. You need to grow up, grow some balls, and take care of yourselves.

  4. First column I’ve seen from old Pat I agreed with in quite some time. He still sucks Jew cock.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rank Prepuce
    No cheese.
    , @brian
    I agreed with P. B.'s comments also but why do you compare him to Marilyn Monroe?
  5. J1234 says:

    They want to establish a no-fly zone and shoot down Syrian and Russian planes that violate it, acts of war Congress never authorized.

    If Hillary wants to fight the Russians, I’ll give her my old .45/70 so she can go over and shoot at them herself, and leave the rest of us out of it. I’d give her my Mini 14, but she has an ethical problem with “assault rifles.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ironfist666
    I own several "weapons". One of the most lethal is the HK-94.
  6. MEexpert says:

    I think it is time for Pat to act rather than just write articles. He can reach the people in the transition team and should make his views heard. Writing in this forum is like preaching to the choir. He should use his good offices to keep people like John Bolton out of the Trump administration. Once Bolton becomes Secretary of State, all the discredited neocons will be back in the State department.

    I agree with JL above. This is why we voted for Trump. If he reneges on his promises then we have wasted our votes, once again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Minnesota Mary
    Rudy Giuliani as Sec. of State scares me just as much as John Bolton does.

    To reward Rudy for his loyalty during the campaign, Trump should make him Attorney General instead.
  7. @J1234

    They want to establish a no-fly zone and shoot down Syrian and Russian planes that violate it, acts of war Congress never authorized.
     
    If Hillary wants to fight the Russians, I'll give her my old .45/70 so she can go over and shoot at them herself, and leave the rest of us out of it. I'd give her my Mini 14, but she has an ethical problem with "assault rifles."

    I own several “weapons”. One of the most lethal is the HK-94.

    Read More
  8. 15 years, six trillion dollars and counting……
    less safe,less free
    yep. didn’t vote for him
    but ready and willing to
    Give Trump a chance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @in the middle
    After hard discussions, I convinced my family and friends to vote for Trump. Lets see if it was worthy. We are not going to get off under neocons (New commies)'s umbrella soon. They have accumulated so much power, that they control basically the minds of the people through their MSM. Even evangelicals who should know better are under their spell. (I was for a while). So, it will take a few people at the time to return people to their senses. I believe Trump will not fulfill his promises, just because no one ever does. I could be wrong; so lets wait and see.
  9. Marcus says:

    His belligerence to Iran bothers me, and could ruin rapprochement with Russia.

    Read More
  10. Donald Trump may not take office. Some think this is justified since Clinton won the popular vote, but others question that since counts are in dispute. But this logic fails since the campaigns were run with the electoral college system in mind. They focused advertising and campaigning in key “battleground” states. If winning the popular vote was the goal, their efforts and the results would have been different. Likewise, millions didn’t vote knowing that polls showed their state was certain to be won by one candidate, but if the popular vote mattered these millions would have voted.

    The popular vote doesn’t matter, but the electoral vote does. People assume that Trump is certain to win because he has plenty of extra electoral college votes to deter a few turncoats seeking to upset the results. I took interest because the state of Michigan with 16 electoral votes remains “undecided” a week after the election. The undisputed 100% tally shows Trump won by 13,107 votes, and there are no reports of fraud or disputes, yet AP refuses to call it for Trump until the state finishes it’s month long verification process. For some reason, all our “independent” media rely on AP to declare winners. 
          
    The 290 Trump Republican electors are chosen due to their party loyalty. Most Republican leaders did not support Trump, and some joined a “Never Trump” effort to openly oppose him. Many stated they would prefer that Clinton win. If only 21 of these 290 Republican electors refuse to vote for Trump, he loses! They don’t even have to vote for Clinton! They can refuse to vote, or vote for Pence or Bush or Romney or Ryan or anyone. 

    If no candidate gets the required 270 votes, the election goes to the House of Representatives to decide, where Republicans hold a slight majority. Given the number of Never Trumpers in the House, they are likely to choose someone else who got a required one elector vote. The Republicans may not agree on a candidate, so House Democrats could play a role, and an acceptable “moderate” like Paul Ryan may emerge as President. Never Trumpers may already have 21 traitors ready to block Trump’s presidency, but he won far more states than predicted, hence the need to put Michigan’s close win on hold until a “recount” can discover errors so that Clinton wins Michigan.

    People would be upset at this coup, but our corporate media would strongly support this. They could flood the nation with another Trump “scandal” and explain that our founding fathers created the electoral college system to prevent unsuitable winners from taking office. They would call these traitors “patriots” for bravely protecting our republic and constitution by stopping Trump! The Democrats would be ecstatic and their television personalities would tell us our system works and Trump lost the popular vote anyway. I don’t think this will happen now that Trump has moderated his views and brought some Republican insiders into his administration, but “Never Trump” means “Never Trump” and this is an easy and legal maneuver fully supported by the “deep state” to include our CIA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    Doesn't matter as Trump has already surpassed 270 electoral votes to win and we can't change our system midstream to tame the passions of crybaby lefties, SJW's and non-white minorities. He also won more states at around 31 to Hilly's 19. The Democrats will probably win the popular vote every election going forward owing to the huge number of immigrants, both legal and illegal, who live in metropolitan areas like L.A., Chicago, NYC and Miami.

    If California was allowed to secede prior to the election then Trump would have won the popular vote by almost 3 million. California used to be a red state before the massive waves of third world immigrants both legal and illegal.

    This is why the Republican party are only cutting their own throats by continuing to allow mass third world immigration.

    , @MarkinLA
    They could flood the nation with another Trump “scandal” and explain that our founding fathers created the electoral college system to prevent unsuitable winners from taking office.

    Complete nonsense that the public would accept this.
  11. gdpbull says:

    That anyone not insane can still think that “Assad must go” is perplexing. Unless, they have a hidden agenda. That is the only explanation possible. In other words, in this case, a conspiracy is the only logical explanation.

    So one should examine who would benefit from another middle east jihadi wonderland where non-Sunni muslims, Christians, Druze, whatever else, are massacred, which is what will happen if Assad goes. So who would want that? Well, all of the Sunni countries of course, and most assuredly Saudi Arabia and Turkey would want that. And yes, Israel also would like that because it will hurt Iran and Hezbollah.

    Time to expose all of the pieces and players on the chess board and hold them accountable for the death and suffering which they have caused and the catastrophe that will ensue if Assad goes. Its time to shine a light on the sleazy, disingenuous, slippery snake, cowardly wicked scum bags, confront them with the truth, and watch them scatter into their remaining dark crevices.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    If you are in AIPAC you want Israel to steal the Golan Heights and the oil their. Not insane at all, especially if only the goyim do the dying.
  12. Ben Frank says:

    George Washington told us plainly to avoid foreign entanglements. Americans need to pay attention to history.

    Read More
  13. @Ironfist666
    First column I've seen from old Pat I agreed with in quite some time. He still sucks Jew cock.

    No cheese.

    Read More
  14. nickels says:

    I can only hope Trump is reading every one of Pat’s columns and taking notes.

    I can not bear to see my country be the abomination of the free and peaceful world any longer, especially not on my dime and the dime of my brothers who are struggling to barely subsist. Such pain and misery is the fertile ground on which those who sow the evil of dissent and hatred plant their foul crop.

    Neocons and SJW’s are two sides of the same evil, sons and daughters of the darkness.

    Read More
  15. @MEexpert
    I think it is time for Pat to act rather than just write articles. He can reach the people in the transition team and should make his views heard. Writing in this forum is like preaching to the choir. He should use his good offices to keep people like John Bolton out of the Trump administration. Once Bolton becomes Secretary of State, all the discredited neocons will be back in the State department.

    I agree with JL above. This is why we voted for Trump. If he reneges on his promises then we have wasted our votes, once again.

    Rudy Giuliani as Sec. of State scares me just as much as John Bolton does.

    To reward Rudy for his loyalty during the campaign, Trump should make him Attorney General instead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    However the clueless HC, who set the entire middle east on fire, did not scare you a bit right?

    Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" Society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.
  16. Realist says:

    “To reward Rudy for his loyalty during the campaign, Trump should make him Attorney General instead.”

    Rudy turned it down.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Rudy is not to be trusted. Bolton should get nothing at all. DT needs to remember what put him where he is or things will unravel quickly.
    , @Minnesota Mary
    "Rudy turned it down."

    Apparently so. The nerve of Rudy to think he's qualified to be Sec. of State. It always bothered me that he was following Trump around on the campaign trail.

    The names floated out for positions in Trump's cabinet and other high government positions reads like "Who's Who" in the G.W. Bush Administration. Apparently the Neocons are riding high wide and handsome once again.

    I sure hope Pat Buchanan comes to his senses and realizes that he's been had.

    I voted for Trump based on Pat's supportive columns for Trump. Now I am so nauseated I can't eat or sleep.
  17. @Anon
    Cold War is long over.

    EU has more people and bigger economy than the US.

    Yet, US is still leading NATO and 'protecting' EU?

    Protecting EU from what? Russia that has no intention of invading? As I recall, USSR not only let go of Warsaw Pact nations but broke apart into several republics. Russia has no will to retake the lost republics. Why would it invade EU?

    Beside, the threat to EU isn't military(from the East) but migration from the south from Muslim and African nations. And EU's main weakness isn't lack of arms or means but lack of moral will to push back the mass invasion.

    It seems the real reason why the US doesn't want to end NATO is it will restore European sovereignty, and that means EU will no longer be vassal of US. And that means it will no longer be vassals of Jewish Globalists since they rule the US.

    So, Jewish globalists don't want to lose EU. NATO is no longer about defense of Europe but a net over Europe.

    But Europeans also fear that if US military departs and if EU must defend itself, the biggest power will be Germany. And Europeans don't want Germany as biggest power again. Also, Germans themselves, after generations of holocaust guilt-indoctrination, are emotionally ill-prepared to play the role of leading military power in the EU.

    And even though US is a thorn on Russia's side, even Russia might actually prefer US domination over EU than Germany as an independent resurgent military power.

    Of course, it's all paranoid nonsense all around, but old habits die hard.

    On the other hand, given Merkel's heavy-handed imperiousness toward Poland and Hungary over the refugee crisis, Teuton brutishness seems to be alive in some odd form.

    The confused back-and-forth of your very comment serves as an illustration of European problems. Yes, the US should stop babysitting Europe. I’m all for that. But that means Europeans, my cousins across the water, must wake up and decide who they are going to be.

    Your implicit claim that my country supports NATO and the defense of Europe for selfish reasons is only correct in one sense: If we had not done so for half-a-century, Europe would not have been able on its own to defend itself against the VERY REAL communist expansion emanating from the USSR. I’m sorry, but if not for the United States, there would have been nothing to stop that expansion.

    Europeans owe us a debt of gratitude. No preaching to us, please. We are ready to leave you alone. You need to grow up, grow some balls, and take care of yourselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Your implicit claim that my country supports NATO and the defense of Europe for selfish reasons is only correct in one sense: If we had not done so for half-a-century, Europe would not have been able on its own to defend itself against the VERY REAL communist expansion emanating from the USSR. I’m sorry, but if not for the United States, there would have been nothing to stop that expansion.

    This is a huge exaggeration. The ability of the USSR to overrun western Europe via a large land attack probably was gone by about 1965 when the successful anti-armor missiles were deployed in large numbers. The capabilities of the USSR were overstated by the CIA and none of the Warsaw Pact countries were much interested in expanding the Soviet Empire.
    , @Anon
    "If we had not done so for half-a-century, Europe would not have been able on its own to defend itself against the VERY REAL communist expansion emanating from the USSR. I’m sorry, but if not for the United States, there would have been nothing to stop that expansion."

    During the Cold War, I felt the same way cuz I hate communism.

    BUT, now I wish USSR had taken all of Europe, UK included. Then, Europe would be white, white,and white. It would not be open to massive immigration.

    Also, people do NOT want to move to communist nations, so masses of third worlders would not have headed to Soviet Ruled Europe.

    Also, living under leftist tyranny would have turned Europeans against the Left. Right would have won moral credit.

    Also, as communist economy was sluggish, there was full employment since it took 3 people to do the job that could be done in a capitalist economy. No need for foreign labor.

    Also, suppression of consumerism meant more humanism and traditionalism. Notice how Russia and Eastern Europe is more traditional than Western Europe that is totally bloodless, soulless, and mindless.

    Also, because communism was very strong about border control, it was good for nationalism. Though Soviets invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia when their reforms went too far, Soviets generally encouraged each nation to keep a tight border.

    Soviet never said Hungary must take in refugees.

    But now, US and Germany says Hungary and Poland must open up to African and Muslim invasion.

    In the long run, the USSR did wonders for Eastern Europe.

    Communism sucks, but it salted Europe like pork. The salt preserved it from contamination by excessive capitalist globalism and PC.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th-Z6le3bHA

    Look at this movie released in US as HEY BABU RIBA.

    Everyone is white.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcgYgMcVhj8

    Communism has its problems, but it preserved nations and cultures. Capitalism wages total war on them. Unless we can have fascist-democratic-capitalism like in Israel, we must reject capitalism.

    Look at this movie. All white too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTutP577aPg
    , @Philip Owen
    Not really. Britain, France and Germany were already forming a treaty organization called the Western European Union to defend against Russia. The US pushed NATO to kill the WEU off, although legally it existed in a functional form until the early 1990's. The US could have allied with the WEU. It went for NATO to have an alliance where is was in control rather than a partner, perhaps even a junior one. The US set out to create dependency. When the Cold War ended, there was considerable discussion about winding up NATO and restoring the WEU. NATO officials (fearing for thier very well paid jobs?) with US support neutered the WEU with faint support. When the problems of Yugoslavia started, the WEU was in no state to be revived and the NATO bureaucracy found a cause for existence.
  18. I see the Syrians are trying to win the war asap. Inshallah the US under Trump will stop funding the jihadis and five years of senseless slaughter will end. Though I see some UN functionary is declaring that if we don’t let Sunni terrorists win in Syria, they’ll bomb us instead!

    After the examples of Iran and Libya, there was no way that our funding and training of the Syrian jihadis could be anything but active malice. A basket-case like Libya was obviously the desired outcome, which is what they’ve currently got but which I hope will soon change.

    Read More
  19. KenH says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    Donald Trump may not take office. Some think this is justified since Clinton won the popular vote, but others question that since counts are in dispute. But this logic fails since the campaigns were run with the electoral college system in mind. They focused advertising and campaigning in key "battleground" states. If winning the popular vote was the goal, their efforts and the results would have been different. Likewise, millions didn't vote knowing that polls showed their state was certain to be won by one candidate, but if the popular vote mattered these millions would have voted.

    The popular vote doesn't matter, but the electoral vote does. People assume that Trump is certain to win because he has plenty of extra electoral college votes to deter a few turncoats seeking to upset the results. I took interest because the state of Michigan with 16 electoral votes remains "undecided" a week after the election. The undisputed 100% tally shows Trump won by 13,107 votes, and there are no reports of fraud or disputes, yet AP refuses to call it for Trump until the state finishes it's month long verification process. For some reason, all our "independent" media rely on AP to declare winners. 
          
    The 290 Trump Republican electors are chosen due to their party loyalty. Most Republican leaders did not support Trump, and some joined a "Never Trump" effort to openly oppose him. Many stated they would prefer that Clinton win. If only 21 of these 290 Republican electors refuse to vote for Trump, he loses! They don't even have to vote for Clinton! They can refuse to vote, or vote for Pence or Bush or Romney or Ryan or anyone. 

    If no candidate gets the required 270 votes, the election goes to the House of Representatives to decide, where Republicans hold a slight majority. Given the number of Never Trumpers in the House, they are likely to choose someone else who got a required one elector vote. The Republicans may not agree on a candidate, so House Democrats could play a role, and an acceptable "moderate" like Paul Ryan may emerge as President. Never Trumpers may already have 21 traitors ready to block Trump's presidency, but he won far more states than predicted, hence the need to put Michigan's close win on hold until a "recount" can discover errors so that Clinton wins Michigan.

    People would be upset at this coup, but our corporate media would strongly support this. They could flood the nation with another Trump "scandal" and explain that our founding fathers created the electoral college system to prevent unsuitable winners from taking office. They would call these traitors "patriots" for bravely protecting our republic and constitution by stopping Trump! The Democrats would be ecstatic and their television personalities would tell us our system works and Trump lost the popular vote anyway. I don't think this will happen now that Trump has moderated his views and brought some Republican insiders into his administration, but "Never Trump" means "Never Trump" and this is an easy and legal maneuver fully supported by the "deep state" to include our CIA.

    Doesn’t matter as Trump has already surpassed 270 electoral votes to win and we can’t change our system midstream to tame the passions of crybaby lefties, SJW’s and non-white minorities. He also won more states at around 31 to Hilly’s 19. The Democrats will probably win the popular vote every election going forward owing to the huge number of immigrants, both legal and illegal, who live in metropolitan areas like L.A., Chicago, NYC and Miami.

    If California was allowed to secede prior to the election then Trump would have won the popular vote by almost 3 million. California used to be a red state before the massive waves of third world immigrants both legal and illegal.

    This is why the Republican party are only cutting their own throats by continuing to allow mass third world immigration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carlton Meyer
    You need to learn about the process. Trump has zero electoral votes right now. Delegates are now being selected who pledge to vote in late December as their state has voted, but they can lie or change their mind, which occurred 157 times in our history, known as faithless electors.

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

    If just 21 of the 290 electors who pledge to vote for Trump, lie or change their mind, Trump does not win. People would be upset, there is nothing us peons can do except some small protests as Clinton's people have done. Denying Trump the Presidency is legal and constitutional, and the Supreme Court would easily agree. The Democrats would approve, and half of Republicans. This may be why Trump made the head of the RNC his chief of staff, to closely watch this process.
    , @boogerbently
    "This is why the Republican party are only cutting their own throats by continuing to allow mass third world immigration."

    I guess this proves greed trumps ideology.
  20. @Realist
    "To reward Rudy for his loyalty during the campaign, Trump should make him Attorney General instead."

    Rudy turned it down.

    Rudy is not to be trusted. Bolton should get nothing at all. DT needs to remember what put him where he is or things will unravel quickly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    So far it appears Trump is fighting to be a one term President.
    , @schmenz
    Look who is "advising" him already, the usual war-mongering suspects: Woolsey (Heaven help us), Bolton, Gaffney, et al.

    Will this be Bush's 3rd term?
  21. MarkinLA says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    Donald Trump may not take office. Some think this is justified since Clinton won the popular vote, but others question that since counts are in dispute. But this logic fails since the campaigns were run with the electoral college system in mind. They focused advertising and campaigning in key "battleground" states. If winning the popular vote was the goal, their efforts and the results would have been different. Likewise, millions didn't vote knowing that polls showed their state was certain to be won by one candidate, but if the popular vote mattered these millions would have voted.

    The popular vote doesn't matter, but the electoral vote does. People assume that Trump is certain to win because he has plenty of extra electoral college votes to deter a few turncoats seeking to upset the results. I took interest because the state of Michigan with 16 electoral votes remains "undecided" a week after the election. The undisputed 100% tally shows Trump won by 13,107 votes, and there are no reports of fraud or disputes, yet AP refuses to call it for Trump until the state finishes it's month long verification process. For some reason, all our "independent" media rely on AP to declare winners. 
          
    The 290 Trump Republican electors are chosen due to their party loyalty. Most Republican leaders did not support Trump, and some joined a "Never Trump" effort to openly oppose him. Many stated they would prefer that Clinton win. If only 21 of these 290 Republican electors refuse to vote for Trump, he loses! They don't even have to vote for Clinton! They can refuse to vote, or vote for Pence or Bush or Romney or Ryan or anyone. 

    If no candidate gets the required 270 votes, the election goes to the House of Representatives to decide, where Republicans hold a slight majority. Given the number of Never Trumpers in the House, they are likely to choose someone else who got a required one elector vote. The Republicans may not agree on a candidate, so House Democrats could play a role, and an acceptable "moderate" like Paul Ryan may emerge as President. Never Trumpers may already have 21 traitors ready to block Trump's presidency, but he won far more states than predicted, hence the need to put Michigan's close win on hold until a "recount" can discover errors so that Clinton wins Michigan.

    People would be upset at this coup, but our corporate media would strongly support this. They could flood the nation with another Trump "scandal" and explain that our founding fathers created the electoral college system to prevent unsuitable winners from taking office. They would call these traitors "patriots" for bravely protecting our republic and constitution by stopping Trump! The Democrats would be ecstatic and their television personalities would tell us our system works and Trump lost the popular vote anyway. I don't think this will happen now that Trump has moderated his views and brought some Republican insiders into his administration, but "Never Trump" means "Never Trump" and this is an easy and legal maneuver fully supported by the "deep state" to include our CIA.

    They could flood the nation with another Trump “scandal” and explain that our founding fathers created the electoral college system to prevent unsuitable winners from taking office.

    Complete nonsense that the public would accept this.

    Read More
  22. MarkinLA says:
    @gdpbull
    That anyone not insane can still think that "Assad must go" is perplexing. Unless, they have a hidden agenda. That is the only explanation possible. In other words, in this case, a conspiracy is the only logical explanation.

    So one should examine who would benefit from another middle east jihadi wonderland where non-Sunni muslims, Christians, Druze, whatever else, are massacred, which is what will happen if Assad goes. So who would want that? Well, all of the Sunni countries of course, and most assuredly Saudi Arabia and Turkey would want that. And yes, Israel also would like that because it will hurt Iran and Hezbollah.

    Time to expose all of the pieces and players on the chess board and hold them accountable for the death and suffering which they have caused and the catastrophe that will ensue if Assad goes. Its time to shine a light on the sleazy, disingenuous, slippery snake, cowardly wicked scum bags, confront them with the truth, and watch them scatter into their remaining dark crevices.

    If you are in AIPAC you want Israel to steal the Golan Heights and the oil their. Not insane at all, especially if only the goyim do the dying.

    Read More
  23. MarkinLA says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    The confused back-and-forth of your very comment serves as an illustration of European problems. Yes, the US should stop babysitting Europe. I'm all for that. But that means Europeans, my cousins across the water, must wake up and decide who they are going to be.

    Your implicit claim that my country supports NATO and the defense of Europe for selfish reasons is only correct in one sense: If we had not done so for half-a-century, Europe would not have been able on its own to defend itself against the VERY REAL communist expansion emanating from the USSR. I'm sorry, but if not for the United States, there would have been nothing to stop that expansion.

    Europeans owe us a debt of gratitude. No preaching to us, please. We are ready to leave you alone. You need to grow up, grow some balls, and take care of yourselves.

    Your implicit claim that my country supports NATO and the defense of Europe for selfish reasons is only correct in one sense: If we had not done so for half-a-century, Europe would not have been able on its own to defend itself against the VERY REAL communist expansion emanating from the USSR. I’m sorry, but if not for the United States, there would have been nothing to stop that expansion.

    This is a huge exaggeration. The ability of the USSR to overrun western Europe via a large land attack probably was gone by about 1965 when the successful anti-armor missiles were deployed in large numbers. The capabilities of the USSR were overstated by the CIA and none of the Warsaw Pact countries were much interested in expanding the Soviet Empire.

    Read More
  24. Marcia says: • Website

    Have you ever wondered how European countries provide its citizens with enormous perks, i.e., lifetime unemployment benefits, ten week vacations, and the like? I believe our subsidizing of their national defense for the last 70 years is a big part of their cozy lifestyle. I agree with Trump, make them pay their fair share and use the rest for our country.

    Read More
    • Agree: Auntie Analogue
    • Replies: @utu
    It is a matter of philosophy and values. In Germany they introduced the universal health insurance already in late 19 c. America was always more libertarian and Hobbesian than Europe. America was always a capitalist paradise which when it worked (actually only a very short period in American history) provided well for workers needs as well, but when it stopped working it began to spiral down to the neoliberal hell. Cutting down military spending would help a bit only. After all military spending is a big Keynesian public work projects from which the rich benefit the most. What we need is Keynesian public projects that is not raided and sucked dry by rich corporations and banks. This public project could be the military and all the people who work to provide it with the stuff it needs.

    Because of philosophical differences Americans are less compatible with Europeans than some Hindu or Muslim communities that have much higher sense of social interdependence than Americans have.
    , @MarkinLA
    make them pay their fair share and use the rest for our country.

    If we did that they might break up NATO and our government doesn't want that. We want to be the big-shot in that useless entity.
  25. brian says:
    @Ironfist666
    First column I've seen from old Pat I agreed with in quite some time. He still sucks Jew cock.

    I agreed with P. B.’s comments also but why do you compare him to Marilyn Monroe?

    Read More
  26. @KenH
    Doesn't matter as Trump has already surpassed 270 electoral votes to win and we can't change our system midstream to tame the passions of crybaby lefties, SJW's and non-white minorities. He also won more states at around 31 to Hilly's 19. The Democrats will probably win the popular vote every election going forward owing to the huge number of immigrants, both legal and illegal, who live in metropolitan areas like L.A., Chicago, NYC and Miami.

    If California was allowed to secede prior to the election then Trump would have won the popular vote by almost 3 million. California used to be a red state before the massive waves of third world immigrants both legal and illegal.

    This is why the Republican party are only cutting their own throats by continuing to allow mass third world immigration.

    You need to learn about the process. Trump has zero electoral votes right now. Delegates are now being selected who pledge to vote in late December as their state has voted, but they can lie or change their mind, which occurred 157 times in our history, known as faithless electors.

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

    If just 21 of the 290 electors who pledge to vote for Trump, lie or change their mind, Trump does not win. People would be upset, there is nothing us peons can do except some small protests as Clinton’s people have done. Denying Trump the Presidency is legal and constitutional, and the Supreme Court would easily agree. The Democrats would approve, and half of Republicans. This may be why Trump made the head of the RNC his chief of staff, to closely watch this process.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grahamsno(G64)
    O please stop the electoral college is not going to risk a civil war to pander to your sore loser fantasies. Get over it he won and will be the president and why on earth do you think that Obama invited him to the white house.
    , @geokat62

    ... but they can lie or change their mind, which occurred 157 times in our history, known as faithless electors.
     
    If you read the wiki reference you linked to more carefully, you'd notice it goes on to say this:

    Despite 157 instances of faithlessness as of 2015, faithless electors have not yet affected the results or ultimate outcome of any other presidential election.
     
    Now you know how the Office of Special Plans worked to help justify the invasion of Iraq: it simply cherry-picked the facts it liked and discarded the rest.
  27. I am in 100% concurrence with Mr. Buchanan on this. The Democratic Party, of which I was a long time active member, is now the Union busting, War Party, that backs foreign invasion of America. How times have changed.

    Read More
  28. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Buzz Mohawk
    The confused back-and-forth of your very comment serves as an illustration of European problems. Yes, the US should stop babysitting Europe. I'm all for that. But that means Europeans, my cousins across the water, must wake up and decide who they are going to be.

    Your implicit claim that my country supports NATO and the defense of Europe for selfish reasons is only correct in one sense: If we had not done so for half-a-century, Europe would not have been able on its own to defend itself against the VERY REAL communist expansion emanating from the USSR. I'm sorry, but if not for the United States, there would have been nothing to stop that expansion.

    Europeans owe us a debt of gratitude. No preaching to us, please. We are ready to leave you alone. You need to grow up, grow some balls, and take care of yourselves.

    “If we had not done so for half-a-century, Europe would not have been able on its own to defend itself against the VERY REAL communist expansion emanating from the USSR. I’m sorry, but if not for the United States, there would have been nothing to stop that expansion.”

    During the Cold War, I felt the same way cuz I hate communism.

    BUT, now I wish USSR had taken all of Europe, UK included. Then, Europe would be white, white,and white. It would not be open to massive immigration.

    Also, people do NOT want to move to communist nations, so masses of third worlders would not have headed to Soviet Ruled Europe.

    Also, living under leftist tyranny would have turned Europeans against the Left. Right would have won moral credit.

    Also, as communist economy was sluggish, there was full employment since it took 3 people to do the job that could be done in a capitalist economy. No need for foreign labor.

    Also, suppression of consumerism meant more humanism and traditionalism. Notice how Russia and Eastern Europe is more traditional than Western Europe that is totally bloodless, soulless, and mindless.

    Also, because communism was very strong about border control, it was good for nationalism. Though Soviets invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia when their reforms went too far, Soviets generally encouraged each nation to keep a tight border.

    Soviet never said Hungary must take in refugees.

    But now, US and Germany says Hungary and Poland must open up to African and Muslim invasion.

    In the long run, the USSR did wonders for Eastern Europe.

    Communism sucks, but it salted Europe like pork. The salt preserved it from contamination by excessive capitalist globalism and PC.

    Look at this movie released in US as HEY BABU RIBA.

    Everyone is white.

    Communism has its problems, but it preserved nations and cultures. Capitalism wages total war on them. Unless we can have fascist-democratic-capitalism like in Israel, we must reject capitalism.

    Look at this movie. All white too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    This is like arguing that the Great Depression in the US should have continued forever because people were more moral and self reliant then. Of course there were certain bad aspects, like mobsters machine gunning people in the streets.
    , @in the middle
    Not really. That lady looks more like Iraqi.
    , @Anonymous
    Gotta disagree with this. Communism killed many millions of Europeans and if Communism had spread, many more would've died. There may well have been a WWIII from an emboldened Soviet Union as well.

    Communism doesn't preserve the culture. One of the first things Communists do is take a steam roller across the culture and crush away anything that doesn't support their ascendancy- religion, history, diverse cultures within the main culture (in America, we'd be talking about Northern vs. Southern Heritage, or aspects of English, vs. German, vs. Netherlands, vs. Scots-Irish, etc - you get the idea. These are even broader in countries that have been around for much longer); many things may get discarded for not being communist enough, such as traditions, even cuisine. People are also moved around and lose ties to their region that their family may have been linked to for centuries. The people end up with a much shallower culture.

    And all of this is not even mentioning the depths of the nightmare that's inflicted upon the people who have to live there. The point that third worlders don't want to move there because it's a dump isn't really a plus.

    It does seem to make them highly resistant to government nonsense such as political correctness, cultural marxist ideas like everyone being exactly equal, "that's not who we are", etc., I'll give you that. But I get the feeling that most whites in the West also see through it, even if they pretend not to. When there are polls about these lefty talking points like amnesty for illegals, anywhere from 2/3 to 80-90% of the public disagrees. And Trump's rise even in the face of the mega-tsunami of media damnation shows it as well. They just can't verbalize it for fear of reprisal, and the media plays a little game to make it appear like they are alone in what the majority actually agrees with. It may be that the whites of the West just haven't reached their boiling point enough to rid themselves of governments that act against them (or maybe just now getting there), whereas Eastern Europeans have already seen the horrors enough to stop the BS before it gets far.
  29. Realist says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Rudy is not to be trusted. Bolton should get nothing at all. DT needs to remember what put him where he is or things will unravel quickly.

    So far it appears Trump is fighting to be a one term President.

    Read More
  30. @Carlton Meyer
    You need to learn about the process. Trump has zero electoral votes right now. Delegates are now being selected who pledge to vote in late December as their state has voted, but they can lie or change their mind, which occurred 157 times in our history, known as faithless electors.

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

    If just 21 of the 290 electors who pledge to vote for Trump, lie or change their mind, Trump does not win. People would be upset, there is nothing us peons can do except some small protests as Clinton's people have done. Denying Trump the Presidency is legal and constitutional, and the Supreme Court would easily agree. The Democrats would approve, and half of Republicans. This may be why Trump made the head of the RNC his chief of staff, to closely watch this process.

    O please stop the electoral college is not going to risk a civil war to pander to your sore loser fantasies. Get over it he won and will be the president and why on earth do you think that Obama invited him to the white house.

    Read More
  31. geokat62 says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    You need to learn about the process. Trump has zero electoral votes right now. Delegates are now being selected who pledge to vote in late December as their state has voted, but they can lie or change their mind, which occurred 157 times in our history, known as faithless electors.

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

    If just 21 of the 290 electors who pledge to vote for Trump, lie or change their mind, Trump does not win. People would be upset, there is nothing us peons can do except some small protests as Clinton's people have done. Denying Trump the Presidency is legal and constitutional, and the Supreme Court would easily agree. The Democrats would approve, and half of Republicans. This may be why Trump made the head of the RNC his chief of staff, to closely watch this process.

    … but they can lie or change their mind, which occurred 157 times in our history, known as faithless electors.

    If you read the wiki reference you linked to more carefully, you’d notice it goes on to say this:

    Despite 157 instances of faithlessness as of 2015, faithless electors have not yet affected the results or ultimate outcome of any other presidential election.

    Now you know how the Office of Special Plans worked to help justify the invasion of Iraq: it simply cherry-picked the facts it liked and discarded the rest.

    Read More
  32. Hibernian says:
    @Anon
    "If we had not done so for half-a-century, Europe would not have been able on its own to defend itself against the VERY REAL communist expansion emanating from the USSR. I’m sorry, but if not for the United States, there would have been nothing to stop that expansion."

    During the Cold War, I felt the same way cuz I hate communism.

    BUT, now I wish USSR had taken all of Europe, UK included. Then, Europe would be white, white,and white. It would not be open to massive immigration.

    Also, people do NOT want to move to communist nations, so masses of third worlders would not have headed to Soviet Ruled Europe.

    Also, living under leftist tyranny would have turned Europeans against the Left. Right would have won moral credit.

    Also, as communist economy was sluggish, there was full employment since it took 3 people to do the job that could be done in a capitalist economy. No need for foreign labor.

    Also, suppression of consumerism meant more humanism and traditionalism. Notice how Russia and Eastern Europe is more traditional than Western Europe that is totally bloodless, soulless, and mindless.

    Also, because communism was very strong about border control, it was good for nationalism. Though Soviets invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia when their reforms went too far, Soviets generally encouraged each nation to keep a tight border.

    Soviet never said Hungary must take in refugees.

    But now, US and Germany says Hungary and Poland must open up to African and Muslim invasion.

    In the long run, the USSR did wonders for Eastern Europe.

    Communism sucks, but it salted Europe like pork. The salt preserved it from contamination by excessive capitalist globalism and PC.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th-Z6le3bHA

    Look at this movie released in US as HEY BABU RIBA.

    Everyone is white.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcgYgMcVhj8

    Communism has its problems, but it preserved nations and cultures. Capitalism wages total war on them. Unless we can have fascist-democratic-capitalism like in Israel, we must reject capitalism.

    Look at this movie. All white too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTutP577aPg

    This is like arguing that the Great Depression in the US should have continued forever because people were more moral and self reliant then. Of course there were certain bad aspects, like mobsters machine gunning people in the streets.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    But if you had to choose between a poor white nation and a rich white nation that is taken over by foreigners and grows ugly with homo decadence, which would you choose?
  33. @Minnesota Mary
    Rudy Giuliani as Sec. of State scares me just as much as John Bolton does.

    To reward Rudy for his loyalty during the campaign, Trump should make him Attorney General instead.

    However the clueless HC, who set the entire middle east on fire, did not scare you a bit right?

    Authenticjazzman, “Mensa” Society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
  34. schmenz says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Rudy is not to be trusted. Bolton should get nothing at all. DT needs to remember what put him where he is or things will unravel quickly.

    Look who is “advising” him already, the usual war-mongering suspects: Woolsey (Heaven help us), Bolton, Gaffney, et al.

    Will this be Bush’s 3rd term?

    Read More
  35. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Hibernian
    This is like arguing that the Great Depression in the US should have continued forever because people were more moral and self reliant then. Of course there were certain bad aspects, like mobsters machine gunning people in the streets.

    But if you had to choose between a poor white nation and a rich white nation that is taken over by foreigners and grows ugly with homo decadence, which would you choose?

    Read More
  36. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Republicans will screw up their opportunity to lead. Newt Gingrich did a good job of that with his take no prisoners approach in Congress in the 1990s and that did the country a disservice by setting a destructive tone. The angry special interests and factions that have been on the sidelines are clamoring to make their views heard. Wait for doctrinaire absolutists to make noise and distract from the mission. They will also provide fodder for press attacks about all the crazies, nationalists and various other -ists. That sells advertising and gets eyeballs watching CNN and reading the New York Times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    What does "lead" mean to you? Should the Republicans cave on everything in order to maintain "unity", whatever that means?
    , @in the middle
    Nothing wrong with people loving their country, whichever country it is. I am sick and tired of hearing 'nationalists' as if it is something wrong with it! As a matter of fact, I do love my country, and may God bless the USA!
  37. How can Trump or Buchanan seriously talk of spending on the defense of another nation, fighting another nation’s wars, or an America-first foreign policy without specifically mentioning Israel? The U.S. forced itself into the position of financial and military defender in Europe and Asia. The same isn’t the case with Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    The U.S. forced itself into the position of financial and military defender in Europe and Asia.
     
    Well, in reality the US is not a defender of anyone. The US military bases abroad are there to control and to project power. That's the post-WWII geopolitical system. Israel is a part of this system. I'm pretty sure Buchanan understands this; Trump - probably not...
  38. @OilcanFloyd
    How can Trump or Buchanan seriously talk of spending on the defense of another nation, fighting another nation's wars, or an America-first foreign policy without specifically mentioning Israel? The U.S. forced itself into the position of financial and military defender in Europe and Asia. The same isn't the case with Israel.

    The U.S. forced itself into the position of financial and military defender in Europe and Asia.

    Well, in reality the US is not a defender of anyone. The US military bases abroad are there to control and to project power. That’s the post-WWII geopolitical system. Israel is a part of this system. I’m pretty sure Buchanan understands this; Trump – probably not…

    Read More
    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    Of course the U.S. isn't protecting Asia, Europe, etc. out of goodness, but the U.S. presence and support of those areas is completely different than the funding of Israel. The U.S. thrust itself upon Europe and Asia, but support of Israel seems to be more a case of Israel and its supporters thrusting themselves upon the U.S. What does the U.S. get out of Israel that it wouldn't get by not supporting Israel and maintaining trade and peaceful ties with Israel's enemies, which are no threat to the U.S.?
    , @in the middle
    Well, in reality the US is not a defender of anyone.

    Actually, military bases are there to protect American companies/investments in case locals try something funny.
  39. @Mao Cheng Ji

    The U.S. forced itself into the position of financial and military defender in Europe and Asia.
     
    Well, in reality the US is not a defender of anyone. The US military bases abroad are there to control and to project power. That's the post-WWII geopolitical system. Israel is a part of this system. I'm pretty sure Buchanan understands this; Trump - probably not...

    Of course the U.S. isn’t protecting Asia, Europe, etc. out of goodness, but the U.S. presence and support of those areas is completely different than the funding of Israel. The U.S. thrust itself upon Europe and Asia, but support of Israel seems to be more a case of Israel and its supporters thrusting themselves upon the U.S. What does the U.S. get out of Israel that it wouldn’t get by not supporting Israel and maintaining trade and peaceful ties with Israel’s enemies, which are no threat to the U.S.?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    Middle East is a very important region. Having a heavily armed western settler colony there is extremely useful for controlling it, projecting power. Especially considering that this colony wouldn't be able to survive on its own; it's fully dependent on the base.
    , @in the middle
    The US supports Israel for two reasons. Talmudists in the US are the money changers, power brokers, and the evangelical nut cases, Zionists preachers like John Hagee, and such ilk continue to preach from their pulpits that we must support Israel, or else God is going to rain fire upon our heads. Such BS. They do have the horn to dictate to their listeners what to do and think and believe. Such is the state of affairs now.
  40. @OilcanFloyd
    Of course the U.S. isn't protecting Asia, Europe, etc. out of goodness, but the U.S. presence and support of those areas is completely different than the funding of Israel. The U.S. thrust itself upon Europe and Asia, but support of Israel seems to be more a case of Israel and its supporters thrusting themselves upon the U.S. What does the U.S. get out of Israel that it wouldn't get by not supporting Israel and maintaining trade and peaceful ties with Israel's enemies, which are no threat to the U.S.?

    Middle East is a very important region. Having a heavily armed western settler colony there is extremely useful for controlling it, projecting power. Especially considering that this colony wouldn’t be able to survive on its own; it’s fully dependent on the base.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I think it's the other way round. The US doesn't sell arms to Israel, it either gives them never-to-be-repaid loans or gives them outright the equipment worth-billions-but-classified-as-scrap. You only have to look at the example of the USS Liberty to see which way things really are, not to mention that Israel spies on the US more than any other nation, surely you can see that.
    , @OilcanFloyd
    Who on earth are you fooling? Israel didn't lift a finger to help in either Gulf War, though many Muslim nations did, which just goes to show that U.S. interests in the region would be much better served by cutting Israel off and dealing honestly with the rest of the states in the region.

    The excuse Israel gave for staying out of each Gulf War was that joining in would break the coalition. That's a real useful ally. Otherwise, all the IDF does is terrorize the Palesinians and stir up trouble that it can't fully manage in Syria and Lebanon. I fail to see how any of that serves U.S. interests. It would make far more sense to promote peace in the region, but that's not what Israel PNAC neocons and Israel's supporters in the U.S. want.
  41. utu says:
    @Marcia
    Have you ever wondered how European countries provide its citizens with enormous perks, i.e., lifetime unemployment benefits, ten week vacations, and the like? I believe our subsidizing of their national defense for the last 70 years is a big part of their cozy lifestyle. I agree with Trump, make them pay their fair share and use the rest for our country.

    It is a matter of philosophy and values. In Germany they introduced the universal health insurance already in late 19 c. America was always more libertarian and Hobbesian than Europe. America was always a capitalist paradise which when it worked (actually only a very short period in American history) provided well for workers needs as well, but when it stopped working it began to spiral down to the neoliberal hell. Cutting down military spending would help a bit only. After all military spending is a big Keynesian public work projects from which the rich benefit the most. What we need is Keynesian public projects that is not raided and sucked dry by rich corporations and banks. This public project could be the military and all the people who work to provide it with the stuff it needs.

    Because of philosophical differences Americans are less compatible with Europeans than some Hindu or Muslim communities that have much higher sense of social interdependence than Americans have.

    Read More
  42. OutWest says:

    If the country is to go Keynesian it would be helpful to produce something of value rather than more military rat hole stuff. It’s a bit ironic that are now deteriorating highway system only made it when Eisenhower –impresses with the Autobahns- proposed it as a military necessity.

    Read More
  43. MarkinLA says:
    @Marcia
    Have you ever wondered how European countries provide its citizens with enormous perks, i.e., lifetime unemployment benefits, ten week vacations, and the like? I believe our subsidizing of their national defense for the last 70 years is a big part of their cozy lifestyle. I agree with Trump, make them pay their fair share and use the rest for our country.

    make them pay their fair share and use the rest for our country.

    If we did that they might break up NATO and our government doesn’t want that. We want to be the big-shot in that useless entity.

    Read More
  44. MarkinLA says:
    @Anonymous
    Republicans will screw up their opportunity to lead. Newt Gingrich did a good job of that with his take no prisoners approach in Congress in the 1990s and that did the country a disservice by setting a destructive tone. The angry special interests and factions that have been on the sidelines are clamoring to make their views heard. Wait for doctrinaire absolutists to make noise and distract from the mission. They will also provide fodder for press attacks about all the crazies, nationalists and various other -ists. That sells advertising and gets eyeballs watching CNN and reading the New York Times.

    What does “lead” mean to you? Should the Republicans cave on everything in order to maintain “unity”, whatever that means?

    Read More
  45. @Buzz Mohawk
    The confused back-and-forth of your very comment serves as an illustration of European problems. Yes, the US should stop babysitting Europe. I'm all for that. But that means Europeans, my cousins across the water, must wake up and decide who they are going to be.

    Your implicit claim that my country supports NATO and the defense of Europe for selfish reasons is only correct in one sense: If we had not done so for half-a-century, Europe would not have been able on its own to defend itself against the VERY REAL communist expansion emanating from the USSR. I'm sorry, but if not for the United States, there would have been nothing to stop that expansion.

    Europeans owe us a debt of gratitude. No preaching to us, please. We are ready to leave you alone. You need to grow up, grow some balls, and take care of yourselves.

    Not really. Britain, France and Germany were already forming a treaty organization called the Western European Union to defend against Russia. The US pushed NATO to kill the WEU off, although legally it existed in a functional form until the early 1990′s. The US could have allied with the WEU. It went for NATO to have an alliance where is was in control rather than a partner, perhaps even a junior one. The US set out to create dependency. When the Cold War ended, there was considerable discussion about winding up NATO and restoring the WEU. NATO officials (fearing for thier very well paid jobs?) with US support neutered the WEU with faint support. When the problems of Yugoslavia started, the WEU was in no state to be revived and the NATO bureaucracy found a cause for existence.

    Read More
  46. @Maureen O'Brien O'Reilly
    15 years, six trillion dollars and counting......
    less safe,less free
    yep. didn't vote for him
    but ready and willing to
    Give Trump a chance.

    After hard discussions, I convinced my family and friends to vote for Trump. Lets see if it was worthy. We are not going to get off under neocons (New commies)’s umbrella soon. They have accumulated so much power, that they control basically the minds of the people through their MSM. Even evangelicals who should know better are under their spell. (I was for a while). So, it will take a few people at the time to return people to their senses. I believe Trump will not fulfill his promises, just because no one ever does. I could be wrong; so lets wait and see.

    Read More
  47. @Anonymous
    Republicans will screw up their opportunity to lead. Newt Gingrich did a good job of that with his take no prisoners approach in Congress in the 1990s and that did the country a disservice by setting a destructive tone. The angry special interests and factions that have been on the sidelines are clamoring to make their views heard. Wait for doctrinaire absolutists to make noise and distract from the mission. They will also provide fodder for press attacks about all the crazies, nationalists and various other -ists. That sells advertising and gets eyeballs watching CNN and reading the New York Times.

    Nothing wrong with people loving their country, whichever country it is. I am sick and tired of hearing ‘nationalists’ as if it is something wrong with it! As a matter of fact, I do love my country, and may God bless the USA!

    Read More
  48. @Anon
    "If we had not done so for half-a-century, Europe would not have been able on its own to defend itself against the VERY REAL communist expansion emanating from the USSR. I’m sorry, but if not for the United States, there would have been nothing to stop that expansion."

    During the Cold War, I felt the same way cuz I hate communism.

    BUT, now I wish USSR had taken all of Europe, UK included. Then, Europe would be white, white,and white. It would not be open to massive immigration.

    Also, people do NOT want to move to communist nations, so masses of third worlders would not have headed to Soviet Ruled Europe.

    Also, living under leftist tyranny would have turned Europeans against the Left. Right would have won moral credit.

    Also, as communist economy was sluggish, there was full employment since it took 3 people to do the job that could be done in a capitalist economy. No need for foreign labor.

    Also, suppression of consumerism meant more humanism and traditionalism. Notice how Russia and Eastern Europe is more traditional than Western Europe that is totally bloodless, soulless, and mindless.

    Also, because communism was very strong about border control, it was good for nationalism. Though Soviets invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia when their reforms went too far, Soviets generally encouraged each nation to keep a tight border.

    Soviet never said Hungary must take in refugees.

    But now, US and Germany says Hungary and Poland must open up to African and Muslim invasion.

    In the long run, the USSR did wonders for Eastern Europe.

    Communism sucks, but it salted Europe like pork. The salt preserved it from contamination by excessive capitalist globalism and PC.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th-Z6le3bHA

    Look at this movie released in US as HEY BABU RIBA.

    Everyone is white.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcgYgMcVhj8

    Communism has its problems, but it preserved nations and cultures. Capitalism wages total war on them. Unless we can have fascist-democratic-capitalism like in Israel, we must reject capitalism.

    Look at this movie. All white too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTutP577aPg

    Not really. That lady looks more like Iraqi.

    Read More
  49. @Mao Cheng Ji

    The U.S. forced itself into the position of financial and military defender in Europe and Asia.
     
    Well, in reality the US is not a defender of anyone. The US military bases abroad are there to control and to project power. That's the post-WWII geopolitical system. Israel is a part of this system. I'm pretty sure Buchanan understands this; Trump - probably not...

    Well, in reality the US is not a defender of anyone.

    Actually, military bases are there to protect American companies/investments in case locals try something funny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    That's the same what I said. "The business of America is business". Except that in the past, yes, it was about American companies, and now it's all interconnected, multi-national, global capital. Capital is primary, nations secondary. The US is the global enforcer.
  50. @OilcanFloyd
    Of course the U.S. isn't protecting Asia, Europe, etc. out of goodness, but the U.S. presence and support of those areas is completely different than the funding of Israel. The U.S. thrust itself upon Europe and Asia, but support of Israel seems to be more a case of Israel and its supporters thrusting themselves upon the U.S. What does the U.S. get out of Israel that it wouldn't get by not supporting Israel and maintaining trade and peaceful ties with Israel's enemies, which are no threat to the U.S.?

    The US supports Israel for two reasons. Talmudists in the US are the money changers, power brokers, and the evangelical nut cases, Zionists preachers like John Hagee, and such ilk continue to preach from their pulpits that we must support Israel, or else God is going to rain fire upon our heads. Such BS. They do have the horn to dictate to their listeners what to do and think and believe. Such is the state of affairs now.

    Read More
  51. @Realist
    "To reward Rudy for his loyalty during the campaign, Trump should make him Attorney General instead."

    Rudy turned it down.

    “Rudy turned it down.”

    Apparently so. The nerve of Rudy to think he’s qualified to be Sec. of State. It always bothered me that he was following Trump around on the campaign trail.

    The names floated out for positions in Trump’s cabinet and other high government positions reads like “Who’s Who” in the G.W. Bush Administration. Apparently the Neocons are riding high wide and handsome once again.

    I sure hope Pat Buchanan comes to his senses and realizes that he’s been had.

    I voted for Trump based on Pat’s supportive columns for Trump. Now I am so nauseated I can’t eat or sleep.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    I agree with you. But perhaps there is a good reason to float these names, but not pick them. I sure hope so if Trump screws up he will be a one termer.
  52. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Middle East is a very important region. Having a heavily armed western settler colony there is extremely useful for controlling it, projecting power. Especially considering that this colony wouldn't be able to survive on its own; it's fully dependent on the base.

    I think it’s the other way round. The US doesn’t sell arms to Israel, it either gives them never-to-be-repaid loans or gives them outright the equipment worth-billions-but-classified-as-scrap. You only have to look at the example of the USS Liberty to see which way things really are, not to mention that Israel spies on the US more than any other nation, surely you can see that.

    Read More
  53. @in the middle
    Well, in reality the US is not a defender of anyone.

    Actually, military bases are there to protect American companies/investments in case locals try something funny.

    That’s the same what I said. “The business of America is business”. Except that in the past, yes, it was about American companies, and now it’s all interconnected, multi-national, global capital. Capital is primary, nations secondary. The US is the global enforcer.

    Read More
  54. Realist says:
    @Minnesota Mary
    "Rudy turned it down."

    Apparently so. The nerve of Rudy to think he's qualified to be Sec. of State. It always bothered me that he was following Trump around on the campaign trail.

    The names floated out for positions in Trump's cabinet and other high government positions reads like "Who's Who" in the G.W. Bush Administration. Apparently the Neocons are riding high wide and handsome once again.

    I sure hope Pat Buchanan comes to his senses and realizes that he's been had.

    I voted for Trump based on Pat's supportive columns for Trump. Now I am so nauseated I can't eat or sleep.

    I agree with you. But perhaps there is a good reason to float these names, but not pick them. I sure hope so if Trump screws up he will be a one termer.

    Read More
  55. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Middle East is a very important region. Having a heavily armed western settler colony there is extremely useful for controlling it, projecting power. Especially considering that this colony wouldn't be able to survive on its own; it's fully dependent on the base.

    Who on earth are you fooling? Israel didn’t lift a finger to help in either Gulf War, though many Muslim nations did, which just goes to show that U.S. interests in the region would be much better served by cutting Israel off and dealing honestly with the rest of the states in the region.

    The excuse Israel gave for staying out of each Gulf War was that joining in would break the coalition. That’s a real useful ally. Otherwise, all the IDF does is terrorize the Palesinians and stir up trouble that it can’t fully manage in Syria and Lebanon. I fail to see how any of that serves U.S. interests. It would make far more sense to promote peace in the region, but that’s not what Israel PNAC neocons and Israel’s supporters in the U.S. want.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    There's no such thing as "US interests" in this discussion. For the US-based globalist business/financial elite, it's important to make troubles and promote ethnic/sectarian hostilities in the regions that they can't directly control. It creates opportunities for meddling, supporting one side or another, and controlling the region this way.

    Nasserism - socialist pan-Arabic movement - was a big scare, to the west, in the 1950s and 60s. There are nearly a half-billion people, living in the resource-rich strategically-located region know as 'the Arab world'. If they unite and act independently, that's a trouble for the US hegemony. An obvious strategy of a global superpower is to weaken its potential competitors. And that's what Israel does in the middle east, and that's why it's sometimes called "west's pitbull in the middle east"...

    , @utu
    "Israel didn’t lift a finger to help in either Gulf War" - Actually the US paid Israel $500 millions so it would stay away and not interfere to keep the broad anti Iraq coalition (that included several muslim countries).
  56. @OilcanFloyd
    Who on earth are you fooling? Israel didn't lift a finger to help in either Gulf War, though many Muslim nations did, which just goes to show that U.S. interests in the region would be much better served by cutting Israel off and dealing honestly with the rest of the states in the region.

    The excuse Israel gave for staying out of each Gulf War was that joining in would break the coalition. That's a real useful ally. Otherwise, all the IDF does is terrorize the Palesinians and stir up trouble that it can't fully manage in Syria and Lebanon. I fail to see how any of that serves U.S. interests. It would make far more sense to promote peace in the region, but that's not what Israel PNAC neocons and Israel's supporters in the U.S. want.

    There’s no such thing as “US interests” in this discussion. For the US-based globalist business/financial elite, it’s important to make troubles and promote ethnic/sectarian hostilities in the regions that they can’t directly control. It creates opportunities for meddling, supporting one side or another, and controlling the region this way.

    Nasserism – socialist pan-Arabic movement – was a big scare, to the west, in the 1950s and 60s. There are nearly a half-billion people, living in the resource-rich strategically-located region know as ‘the Arab world’. If they unite and act independently, that’s a trouble for the US hegemony. An obvious strategy of a global superpower is to weaken its potential competitors. And that’s what Israel does in the middle east, and that’s why it’s sometimes called “west’s pitbull in the middle east”…

    Read More
    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    The U.S. has interests and it doesn't have interests at the same time. Okay.

    There is no Soviet Union or Nasser, and the Israelis aren't exactly fighting proxy wars for the West at the moment. My guess is that if Trump and Putin work together to bring peace to the region, the result will be far better than having chaos that benefits Israel.
    , @geokat62

    And that’s what Israel does in the middle east, and that’s why it’s sometimes called “west’s pitbull in the middle east”…
     
    Dear, Mao Cheng Ji (btw - my compliments to Hasbara Central for the much improved handles... very deceptive, indeed):

    You need to tell HC to update their talking points. This business about Israel being the "west’s pitbull in the middle east”…is very outdated. How outdated? I think Noam Chomsky is the only one left who subscribes to this drivel, better known as "dog wags tail." This theory has been superseded by the one put forward by the two truth-telling professors, Mearsheimer and Walt, in The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. It is better known as " tail wags dog," You should give it a read and provide us with your assessment. We look forward to it.

  57. Bring back the Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!!

    It worked in 1882..kept America 9o percent White Folks!!!….Who would be opposed to this?….The Chinese in America?

    Read More
  58. @Mao Cheng Ji
    There's no such thing as "US interests" in this discussion. For the US-based globalist business/financial elite, it's important to make troubles and promote ethnic/sectarian hostilities in the regions that they can't directly control. It creates opportunities for meddling, supporting one side or another, and controlling the region this way.

    Nasserism - socialist pan-Arabic movement - was a big scare, to the west, in the 1950s and 60s. There are nearly a half-billion people, living in the resource-rich strategically-located region know as 'the Arab world'. If they unite and act independently, that's a trouble for the US hegemony. An obvious strategy of a global superpower is to weaken its potential competitors. And that's what Israel does in the middle east, and that's why it's sometimes called "west's pitbull in the middle east"...

    The U.S. has interests and it doesn’t have interests at the same time. Okay.

    There is no Soviet Union or Nasser, and the Israelis aren’t exactly fighting proxy wars for the West at the moment. My guess is that if Trump and Putin work together to bring peace to the region, the result will be far better than having chaos that benefits Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    The U.S. has interests and it doesn’t have interests at the same time. Okay.
     
    There are interests of the ruling elite, and we usually call them "US interests", to make it simple.

    There is no Soviet Union or Nasser
     
    Yes, but Russia and 'the Arab world' (which could potentially become, as it was in the past, a powerful state, 'the Caliphate') are still around. Their elites have their interests and their ambitions, and so the western elites are trying to weaken them. The usual geopolitical games...
  59. @OilcanFloyd
    The U.S. has interests and it doesn't have interests at the same time. Okay.

    There is no Soviet Union or Nasser, and the Israelis aren't exactly fighting proxy wars for the West at the moment. My guess is that if Trump and Putin work together to bring peace to the region, the result will be far better than having chaos that benefits Israel.

    The U.S. has interests and it doesn’t have interests at the same time. Okay.

    There are interests of the ruling elite, and we usually call them “US interests”, to make it simple.

    There is no Soviet Union or Nasser

    Yes, but Russia and ‘the Arab world’ (which could potentially become, as it was in the past, a powerful state, ‘the Caliphate’) are still around. Their elites have their interests and their ambitions, and so the western elites are trying to weaken them. The usual geopolitical games…

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Yes, but Russia and ‘the Arab world’ (which could potentially become, as it was in the past, a powerful state, ‘the Caliphate’) are still around. Their elites have their interests and their ambitions, and so the western elites are trying to weaken them. The usual geopolitical games…
     
    Hi, MCJ.

    Speaking of games, let me ask you this question: if Israel was so worried about the restoration of 'the caliphate', why would they have lobbied the US to remove the Arab regimes (Iraq, Libya, Syria, work in progress) that were the only safeguards preventing the Islamists from coming to power... and restoring the dreaded caliphate?
    , @OilcanFloyd
    It's not news that the psychopaths at the top refuse to admit that the nation has interests beyond lining their pockets and promoting oligarchy. Doing so doesn't negate the national interest. Apparently you missed the presidential election. What will come of it all is a mystery to me, but the message was loud and clear.

    Having an Israeli define the American national interest for me is about as interesting as having a Jew showing me the ropes on Christianity. It's always a load of self-serving BS.
  60. @Realist
    I agree with you. But perhaps there is a good reason to float these names, but not pick them. I sure hope so if Trump screws up he will be a one termer.

    Yes, and Hillary is already running again for 2020.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Maybe she's hoping that by then technology will have advanced to the point of transferring consciousness into a healthy body. I can't see that crone crawling onto a stage in 4 yrs even with a gut full of meds and the best physicians money can buy. Neither of the Clintons look too healthy- a good testament to the saying about having the face you deserve as you get older.
  61. @KenH
    Doesn't matter as Trump has already surpassed 270 electoral votes to win and we can't change our system midstream to tame the passions of crybaby lefties, SJW's and non-white minorities. He also won more states at around 31 to Hilly's 19. The Democrats will probably win the popular vote every election going forward owing to the huge number of immigrants, both legal and illegal, who live in metropolitan areas like L.A., Chicago, NYC and Miami.

    If California was allowed to secede prior to the election then Trump would have won the popular vote by almost 3 million. California used to be a red state before the massive waves of third world immigrants both legal and illegal.

    This is why the Republican party are only cutting their own throats by continuing to allow mass third world immigration.

    “This is why the Republican party are only cutting their own throats by continuing to allow mass third world immigration.”

    I guess this proves greed trumps ideology.

    Read More
  62. geokat62 says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    There's no such thing as "US interests" in this discussion. For the US-based globalist business/financial elite, it's important to make troubles and promote ethnic/sectarian hostilities in the regions that they can't directly control. It creates opportunities for meddling, supporting one side or another, and controlling the region this way.

    Nasserism - socialist pan-Arabic movement - was a big scare, to the west, in the 1950s and 60s. There are nearly a half-billion people, living in the resource-rich strategically-located region know as 'the Arab world'. If they unite and act independently, that's a trouble for the US hegemony. An obvious strategy of a global superpower is to weaken its potential competitors. And that's what Israel does in the middle east, and that's why it's sometimes called "west's pitbull in the middle east"...

    And that’s what Israel does in the middle east, and that’s why it’s sometimes called “west’s pitbull in the middle east”…

    Dear, Mao Cheng Ji (btw – my compliments to Hasbara Central for the much improved handles… very deceptive, indeed):

    You need to tell HC to update their talking points. This business about Israel being the “west’s pitbull in the middle east”…is very outdated. How outdated? I think Noam Chomsky is the only one left who subscribes to this drivel, better known as “dog wags tail.” This theory has been superseded by the one put forward by the two truth-telling professors, Mearsheimer and Walt, in The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. It is better known as ” tail wags dog,” You should give it a read and provide us with your assessment. We look forward to it.

    Read More
  63. geokat62 says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    The U.S. has interests and it doesn’t have interests at the same time. Okay.
     
    There are interests of the ruling elite, and we usually call them "US interests", to make it simple.

    There is no Soviet Union or Nasser
     
    Yes, but Russia and 'the Arab world' (which could potentially become, as it was in the past, a powerful state, 'the Caliphate') are still around. Their elites have their interests and their ambitions, and so the western elites are trying to weaken them. The usual geopolitical games...

    Yes, but Russia and ‘the Arab world’ (which could potentially become, as it was in the past, a powerful state, ‘the Caliphate’) are still around. Their elites have their interests and their ambitions, and so the western elites are trying to weaken them. The usual geopolitical games…

    Hi, MCJ.

    Speaking of games, let me ask you this question: if Israel was so worried about the restoration of ‘the caliphate’, why would they have lobbied the US to remove the Arab regimes (Iraq, Libya, Syria, work in progress) that were the only safeguards preventing the Islamists from coming to power… and restoring the dreaded caliphate?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    How could you deduce "Israel was so worried about the restoration of ‘the caliphate’" from the quote you posted?

    Again, if it still isn't clear: my hypothesis is that Israel is a tool of western imperialism, not the opposite. Comprende?

    I'm aware of the 'tail wagging the dog' theory, but it seems unlikely, as it would require some supernatural powers for the small Zionist entity, to 'wag' not only the US, but most of Europe (not to mention Canada, and other states of the western orientation) as well. But yeah, it's a theory.
  64. Olmec says:

    George W., invaded Iraq and preached a global crusade for democracy “to end tyranny in our world.”

    While he was kissing the lips and holding the hands of the Saudi monarchy which is the exact opposite of democracy, rationalism, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, human rights etc which are core American values. It is the Saudi wahhabi/salafi/takfiri ideology, aided and abetted by the cynical, amoral Republican/Democrat Establishment, that led to al-Qaeda and ISIS:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dfd_1375495354

    This blatantly shameless hypocrisy, which the mainstream media never challenged, is a prime example of the Establishment lies that led to Trump being seen as a breath of fresh air for exposing it. Hence his victory.

    Read More
  65. utu says:
    @OilcanFloyd
    Who on earth are you fooling? Israel didn't lift a finger to help in either Gulf War, though many Muslim nations did, which just goes to show that U.S. interests in the region would be much better served by cutting Israel off and dealing honestly with the rest of the states in the region.

    The excuse Israel gave for staying out of each Gulf War was that joining in would break the coalition. That's a real useful ally. Otherwise, all the IDF does is terrorize the Palesinians and stir up trouble that it can't fully manage in Syria and Lebanon. I fail to see how any of that serves U.S. interests. It would make far more sense to promote peace in the region, but that's not what Israel PNAC neocons and Israel's supporters in the U.S. want.

    “Israel didn’t lift a finger to help in either Gulf War” – Actually the US paid Israel $500 millions so it would stay away and not interfere to keep the broad anti Iraq coalition (that included several muslim countries).

    Read More
    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
    I guess Israel lifted a finger to count the cash, but they knew that was coming their way. It's like Danegeld in reverse: we have to pay them not to fight alongside us, and I doubt the Israelis ever had any intention of fighting in either Gulf War.

    I know the U.S. sent cash and weapons to the Israelis so that they wouldn't partake in the violence. My point is that Israel isn't an ally or weapon of the West. I even know a Marine who claims that he was deployed to Israel during Desert Storm in case things got out of control. Israel is more parasite than pit bull or ally.

    Seriously, it makes far more sense to ally with the Russians to promote peace and stability in the Muslim world than it does to pamper Israel and continue the chaos and destruction that keeps Israel's enemies weak.
  66. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    "If we had not done so for half-a-century, Europe would not have been able on its own to defend itself against the VERY REAL communist expansion emanating from the USSR. I’m sorry, but if not for the United States, there would have been nothing to stop that expansion."

    During the Cold War, I felt the same way cuz I hate communism.

    BUT, now I wish USSR had taken all of Europe, UK included. Then, Europe would be white, white,and white. It would not be open to massive immigration.

    Also, people do NOT want to move to communist nations, so masses of third worlders would not have headed to Soviet Ruled Europe.

    Also, living under leftist tyranny would have turned Europeans against the Left. Right would have won moral credit.

    Also, as communist economy was sluggish, there was full employment since it took 3 people to do the job that could be done in a capitalist economy. No need for foreign labor.

    Also, suppression of consumerism meant more humanism and traditionalism. Notice how Russia and Eastern Europe is more traditional than Western Europe that is totally bloodless, soulless, and mindless.

    Also, because communism was very strong about border control, it was good for nationalism. Though Soviets invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia when their reforms went too far, Soviets generally encouraged each nation to keep a tight border.

    Soviet never said Hungary must take in refugees.

    But now, US and Germany says Hungary and Poland must open up to African and Muslim invasion.

    In the long run, the USSR did wonders for Eastern Europe.

    Communism sucks, but it salted Europe like pork. The salt preserved it from contamination by excessive capitalist globalism and PC.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th-Z6le3bHA

    Look at this movie released in US as HEY BABU RIBA.

    Everyone is white.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcgYgMcVhj8

    Communism has its problems, but it preserved nations and cultures. Capitalism wages total war on them. Unless we can have fascist-democratic-capitalism like in Israel, we must reject capitalism.

    Look at this movie. All white too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTutP577aPg

    Gotta disagree with this. Communism killed many millions of Europeans and if Communism had spread, many more would’ve died. There may well have been a WWIII from an emboldened Soviet Union as well.

    Communism doesn’t preserve the culture. One of the first things Communists do is take a steam roller across the culture and crush away anything that doesn’t support their ascendancy- religion, history, diverse cultures within the main culture (in America, we’d be talking about Northern vs. Southern Heritage, or aspects of English, vs. German, vs. Netherlands, vs. Scots-Irish, etc – you get the idea. These are even broader in countries that have been around for much longer); many things may get discarded for not being communist enough, such as traditions, even cuisine. People are also moved around and lose ties to their region that their family may have been linked to for centuries. The people end up with a much shallower culture.

    And all of this is not even mentioning the depths of the nightmare that’s inflicted upon the people who have to live there. The point that third worlders don’t want to move there because it’s a dump isn’t really a plus.

    It does seem to make them highly resistant to government nonsense such as political correctness, cultural marxist ideas like everyone being exactly equal, “that’s not who we are”, etc., I’ll give you that. But I get the feeling that most whites in the West also see through it, even if they pretend not to. When there are polls about these lefty talking points like amnesty for illegals, anywhere from 2/3 to 80-90% of the public disagrees. And Trump’s rise even in the face of the mega-tsunami of media damnation shows it as well. They just can’t verbalize it for fear of reprisal, and the media plays a little game to make it appear like they are alone in what the majority actually agrees with. It may be that the whites of the West just haven’t reached their boiling point enough to rid themselves of governments that act against them (or maybe just now getting there), whereas Eastern Europeans have already seen the horrors enough to stop the BS before it gets far.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "Eastern Europeans have already seen the horrors enough to stop the BS before it gets far." I wish it was so. But I would not give EE that much credit for their seeming resistance. The methodology that worked on Western Europeans was not the most effective for EE's.

    Compare Poland with Spain. Spain came out from under Franco (authoritarian, conservative, Catholic Church in power) and was totally susceptible to what liberal Western society and culture had to offer after Franco was gone while Poland (authoritarian, socially progressive, church was against the state) showed much less enthusiasm for the cultural novelties flowing from the West.
    , @anonymous
    That"s not the case in Australia, where the Vietnamese and their descendants vote overwhelmingly for the socialist Australian Labor Party.
    My view, fwiw, is that people who have survived under socialism have a headstart on the rest of us, and vote accordingly.
    , @Boris N
    Always remember that Communism is a 100% Western ideology. And Russia has hardly anything to do with it. The fact that Russia has failed at it shows that Russia and Western ideologies are incompatible. The East is not the West and so on. The East simply misunderstood the craziness of those Western ideas and it was its gravely mistake. It is really hypocritical that you spread your ideology on a foreign country and then blame and demonize the country for having your own ideas. So the spread of communism in Europe right after WWII was a comeback of what they had created. It is only unfair that Western Europe itself did not pay for its Marx and Engels and have not experienced Communism in full. I think the world history of the 20th century has all gone wrong. It must have been the crazy Communist West against capitalist traditionalist Russia, China and the rest of the world.
  67. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Minnesota Mary
    Yes, and Hillary is already running again for 2020.

    Maybe she’s hoping that by then technology will have advanced to the point of transferring consciousness into a healthy body. I can’t see that crone crawling onto a stage in 4 yrs even with a gut full of meds and the best physicians money can buy. Neither of the Clintons look too healthy- a good testament to the saying about having the face you deserve as you get older.

    Read More
  68. utu says:
    @Anonymous
    Gotta disagree with this. Communism killed many millions of Europeans and if Communism had spread, many more would've died. There may well have been a WWIII from an emboldened Soviet Union as well.

    Communism doesn't preserve the culture. One of the first things Communists do is take a steam roller across the culture and crush away anything that doesn't support their ascendancy- religion, history, diverse cultures within the main culture (in America, we'd be talking about Northern vs. Southern Heritage, or aspects of English, vs. German, vs. Netherlands, vs. Scots-Irish, etc - you get the idea. These are even broader in countries that have been around for much longer); many things may get discarded for not being communist enough, such as traditions, even cuisine. People are also moved around and lose ties to their region that their family may have been linked to for centuries. The people end up with a much shallower culture.

    And all of this is not even mentioning the depths of the nightmare that's inflicted upon the people who have to live there. The point that third worlders don't want to move there because it's a dump isn't really a plus.

    It does seem to make them highly resistant to government nonsense such as political correctness, cultural marxist ideas like everyone being exactly equal, "that's not who we are", etc., I'll give you that. But I get the feeling that most whites in the West also see through it, even if they pretend not to. When there are polls about these lefty talking points like amnesty for illegals, anywhere from 2/3 to 80-90% of the public disagrees. And Trump's rise even in the face of the mega-tsunami of media damnation shows it as well. They just can't verbalize it for fear of reprisal, and the media plays a little game to make it appear like they are alone in what the majority actually agrees with. It may be that the whites of the West just haven't reached their boiling point enough to rid themselves of governments that act against them (or maybe just now getting there), whereas Eastern Europeans have already seen the horrors enough to stop the BS before it gets far.

    “Eastern Europeans have already seen the horrors enough to stop the BS before it gets far.” I wish it was so. But I would not give EE that much credit for their seeming resistance. The methodology that worked on Western Europeans was not the most effective for EE’s.

    Compare Poland with Spain. Spain came out from under Franco (authoritarian, conservative, Catholic Church in power) and was totally susceptible to what liberal Western society and culture had to offer after Franco was gone while Poland (authoritarian, socially progressive, church was against the state) showed much less enthusiasm for the cultural novelties flowing from the West.

    Read More
  69. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    Gotta disagree with this. Communism killed many millions of Europeans and if Communism had spread, many more would've died. There may well have been a WWIII from an emboldened Soviet Union as well.

    Communism doesn't preserve the culture. One of the first things Communists do is take a steam roller across the culture and crush away anything that doesn't support their ascendancy- religion, history, diverse cultures within the main culture (in America, we'd be talking about Northern vs. Southern Heritage, or aspects of English, vs. German, vs. Netherlands, vs. Scots-Irish, etc - you get the idea. These are even broader in countries that have been around for much longer); many things may get discarded for not being communist enough, such as traditions, even cuisine. People are also moved around and lose ties to their region that their family may have been linked to for centuries. The people end up with a much shallower culture.

    And all of this is not even mentioning the depths of the nightmare that's inflicted upon the people who have to live there. The point that third worlders don't want to move there because it's a dump isn't really a plus.

    It does seem to make them highly resistant to government nonsense such as political correctness, cultural marxist ideas like everyone being exactly equal, "that's not who we are", etc., I'll give you that. But I get the feeling that most whites in the West also see through it, even if they pretend not to. When there are polls about these lefty talking points like amnesty for illegals, anywhere from 2/3 to 80-90% of the public disagrees. And Trump's rise even in the face of the mega-tsunami of media damnation shows it as well. They just can't verbalize it for fear of reprisal, and the media plays a little game to make it appear like they are alone in what the majority actually agrees with. It may be that the whites of the West just haven't reached their boiling point enough to rid themselves of governments that act against them (or maybe just now getting there), whereas Eastern Europeans have already seen the horrors enough to stop the BS before it gets far.

    That”s not the case in Australia, where the Vietnamese and their descendants vote overwhelmingly for the socialist Australian Labor Party.
    My view, fwiw, is that people who have survived under socialism have a headstart on the rest of us, and vote accordingly.

    Read More
  70. @geokat62

    Yes, but Russia and ‘the Arab world’ (which could potentially become, as it was in the past, a powerful state, ‘the Caliphate’) are still around. Their elites have their interests and their ambitions, and so the western elites are trying to weaken them. The usual geopolitical games…
     
    Hi, MCJ.

    Speaking of games, let me ask you this question: if Israel was so worried about the restoration of 'the caliphate', why would they have lobbied the US to remove the Arab regimes (Iraq, Libya, Syria, work in progress) that were the only safeguards preventing the Islamists from coming to power... and restoring the dreaded caliphate?

    How could you deduce “Israel was so worried about the restoration of ‘the caliphate’” from the quote you posted?

    Again, if it still isn’t clear: my hypothesis is that Israel is a tool of western imperialism, not the opposite. Comprende?

    I’m aware of the ‘tail wagging the dog’ theory, but it seems unlikely, as it would require some supernatural powers for the small Zionist entity, to ‘wag’ not only the US, but most of Europe (not to mention Canada, and other states of the western orientation) as well. But yeah, it’s a theory.

    Read More
  71. geokat62 says:

    How could you deduce “Israel was so worried about the restoration of ‘the caliphate” from the quote you posted?

    I asked you a simple question, but you refused to answer it.

    Again, if it still isn’t clear: my hypothesis is that Israel is a tool of western imperialism, not the opposite. Comprende?

    Your hypothesis is very clear. Trouble is, it’s also very wrong. Comprende?

    I’m aware of the ‘tail wagging the dog’ theory, but it seems unlikely, as it would require some supernatural powers for the small Zionist entity, to ‘wag’ not only the US, but most of Europe…

    Supernatural powers? You don’t have to look to the heavens to understand that their terrestrial power is derived from the following lobbies:

    [MORE]

    In America:
    AIPAC
    ADL
    ZOA
    IPF
    AJC
    RACRJ
    ASI
    AFL
    Mercaz-USA
    Hadassah
    CUFI
    51 of the largest and most important come together in the CPMAJO

    In Canada:
    CIJA
    CJC
    CZO
    BB
    CIC

    In Australia:
    ECAJ
    BBADC

    In France:
    CRIF

    In UK:
    BICOM
    LFI
    CFI
    LDFI

    etc. etc.

    Read More
  72. I asked you a simple question, but you refused to answer it.

    Yes, but the premise of your question is not based on anything I said. I specifically rejected the notion that “Israel was so worried about the restoration of ‘the caliphate””, and you’re asking me to defend it. That’s silly.

    Trouble is, it’s also very wrong. Comprende?

    Sure. You have the right to an opinion.

    power is derived from the following lobbies

    So, it’s a question of the total number of 3-letter lobbying groups? Excuse me for being unconvinced…

    If the western world – of around a billion people, dozens of powerful states – was so easily subvertable by some ADLs and ZOAs, no matter how well-financed, to the point of forcing it to act against its own interests (as perceived by its elites), then the western civilization isn’t worth a spit, anyway. Which is, of course, theoretically a possibility, but then how do we explain this civilization conquering and controlling and exploiting most of the rest of the world? Something doesn’t fit here, I’m afraid…

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    I specifically rejected the notion that “Israel was so worried about the restoration of ‘the caliphate””, and you’re asking me to defend it. That’s silly.
     
    No, I wasn't asking you to defend it, I was merely illustrating that rather than taking the restoration of the caliphate as seriously as you do, most people realize that the prospects of this happening is slim to none as the neocons would not have pushed the US to topple the regimes who were preventing this scenario from coming to pass.

    Something doesn’t fit here, I’m afraid…
     
    What doesn't fit is Chomski's "dog wag tail" explanation of events in the ME. Why don't you read Mearsheimer and Walt's The Isrsel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. It will open a window into the "tail wags dog" hypothesis.
  73. @utu
    "Israel didn’t lift a finger to help in either Gulf War" - Actually the US paid Israel $500 millions so it would stay away and not interfere to keep the broad anti Iraq coalition (that included several muslim countries).

    I guess Israel lifted a finger to count the cash, but they knew that was coming their way. It’s like Danegeld in reverse: we have to pay them not to fight alongside us, and I doubt the Israelis ever had any intention of fighting in either Gulf War.

    I know the U.S. sent cash and weapons to the Israelis so that they wouldn’t partake in the violence. My point is that Israel isn’t an ally or weapon of the West. I even know a Marine who claims that he was deployed to Israel during Desert Storm in case things got out of control. Israel is more parasite than pit bull or ally.

    Seriously, it makes far more sense to ally with the Russians to promote peace and stability in the Muslim world than it does to pamper Israel and continue the chaos and destruction that keeps Israel’s enemies weak.

    Read More
  74. @Mao Cheng Ji

    The U.S. has interests and it doesn’t have interests at the same time. Okay.
     
    There are interests of the ruling elite, and we usually call them "US interests", to make it simple.

    There is no Soviet Union or Nasser
     
    Yes, but Russia and 'the Arab world' (which could potentially become, as it was in the past, a powerful state, 'the Caliphate') are still around. Their elites have their interests and their ambitions, and so the western elites are trying to weaken them. The usual geopolitical games...

    It’s not news that the psychopaths at the top refuse to admit that the nation has interests beyond lining their pockets and promoting oligarchy. Doing so doesn’t negate the national interest. Apparently you missed the presidential election. What will come of it all is a mystery to me, but the message was loud and clear.

    Having an Israeli define the American national interest for me is about as interesting as having a Jew showing me the ropes on Christianity. It’s always a load of self-serving BS.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    You lost me: who is that Israeli, and why are you complaining to me?

    National interest (of the whole population) can't be explained, it needs to emerge as a consensus. To reach the consensus, nation needs a mechanism. My personal preference is the Swiss system: localism and direct democracy.
  75. @OilcanFloyd
    It's not news that the psychopaths at the top refuse to admit that the nation has interests beyond lining their pockets and promoting oligarchy. Doing so doesn't negate the national interest. Apparently you missed the presidential election. What will come of it all is a mystery to me, but the message was loud and clear.

    Having an Israeli define the American national interest for me is about as interesting as having a Jew showing me the ropes on Christianity. It's always a load of self-serving BS.

    You lost me: who is that Israeli, and why are you complaining to me?

    National interest (of the whole population) can’t be explained, it needs to emerge as a consensus. To reach the consensus, nation needs a mechanism. My personal preference is the Swiss system: localism and direct democracy.

    Read More
  76. geokat62 says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    I asked you a simple question, but you refused to answer it.
     
    Yes, but the premise of your question is not based on anything I said. I specifically rejected the notion that "Israel was so worried about the restoration of ‘the caliphate”", and you're asking me to defend it. That's silly.

    Trouble is, it’s also very wrong. Comprende?
     
    Sure. You have the right to an opinion.

    power is derived from the following lobbies
     
    So, it's a question of the total number of 3-letter lobbying groups? Excuse me for being unconvinced...

    If the western world - of around a billion people, dozens of powerful states - was so easily subvertable by some ADLs and ZOAs, no matter how well-financed, to the point of forcing it to act against its own interests (as perceived by its elites), then the western civilization isn't worth a spit, anyway. Which is, of course, theoretically a possibility, but then how do we explain this civilization conquering and controlling and exploiting most of the rest of the world? Something doesn't fit here, I'm afraid...

    I specifically rejected the notion that “Israel was so worried about the restoration of ‘the caliphate””, and you’re asking me to defend it. That’s silly.

    No, I wasn’t asking you to defend it, I was merely illustrating that rather than taking the restoration of the caliphate as seriously as you do, most people realize that the prospects of this happening is slim to none as the neocons would not have pushed the US to topple the regimes who were preventing this scenario from coming to pass.

    Something doesn’t fit here, I’m afraid…

    What doesn’t fit is Chomski’s “dog wag tail” explanation of events in the ME. Why don’t you read Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Isrsel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. It will open a window into the “tail wags dog” hypothesis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    I read it (or reviews, anyway) when it just came out, years ago. And, you know, I don't think most of it even contradictory to what I'm saying. Yeah, there's a mechanism for applying pressure and maintaining discipline - of course there is. A couple of professors believe the US national interests lay elsewhere - of course they do. I don't dispute any of that.

    But that doesn't exactly explain Zionists' success vis-a-vis western establishments. A lot of movements had similar (or better) mechanisms: the labor unions, the communists, the mafia, the IRA (in the US), you name it -- nevertheless, they were attacked by the establishment and defeated (or at least restrained).

    Also, there were other movements with similar status; to pick one: the Afghan mujahideen movement in the 80s. "These gentlemen are the moral equivalent of the founding fathers." Was that beneficial to the 'US national interests'? I don't think so.

    Mearsheimer/Walt presume parasitic relations, but I say it's symbiotic with the US establishment: Israel serves their purpose - and that's the only (but important) difference.
  77. @geokat62

    I specifically rejected the notion that “Israel was so worried about the restoration of ‘the caliphate””, and you’re asking me to defend it. That’s silly.
     
    No, I wasn't asking you to defend it, I was merely illustrating that rather than taking the restoration of the caliphate as seriously as you do, most people realize that the prospects of this happening is slim to none as the neocons would not have pushed the US to topple the regimes who were preventing this scenario from coming to pass.

    Something doesn’t fit here, I’m afraid…
     
    What doesn't fit is Chomski's "dog wag tail" explanation of events in the ME. Why don't you read Mearsheimer and Walt's The Isrsel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. It will open a window into the "tail wags dog" hypothesis.

    I read it (or reviews, anyway) when it just came out, years ago. And, you know, I don’t think most of it even contradictory to what I’m saying. Yeah, there’s a mechanism for applying pressure and maintaining discipline – of course there is. A couple of professors believe the US national interests lay elsewhere – of course they do. I don’t dispute any of that.

    But that doesn’t exactly explain Zionists’ success vis-a-vis western establishments. A lot of movements had similar (or better) mechanisms: the labor unions, the communists, the mafia, the IRA (in the US), you name it — nevertheless, they were attacked by the establishment and defeated (or at least restrained).

    Also, there were other movements with similar status; to pick one: the Afghan mujahideen movement in the 80s. “These gentlemen are the moral equivalent of the founding fathers.” Was that beneficial to the ‘US national interests’? I don’t think so.

    Mearsheimer/Walt presume parasitic relations, but I say it’s symbiotic with the US establishment: Israel serves their purpose – and that’s the only (but important) difference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    A lot of movements had similar (or better) mechanisms:... — nevertheless, they were attacked by the establishment and defeated (or at least restrained).
     
    The only difference being this: we're not at that stage, yet. We've just now reached the cusp of the body (politic's ) immune system fighting back against these threats.

    Mearsheimer/Walt presume parasitic relations, but I say it’s symbiotic with the US establishment...
     
    I agree that the US establishment is benefiting from these policies. No argument there. My point is that the majority of the American people are undoubtedly being harmed by them... and that is what I think the two professors have brought to light.
  78. geokat62 says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    I read it (or reviews, anyway) when it just came out, years ago. And, you know, I don't think most of it even contradictory to what I'm saying. Yeah, there's a mechanism for applying pressure and maintaining discipline - of course there is. A couple of professors believe the US national interests lay elsewhere - of course they do. I don't dispute any of that.

    But that doesn't exactly explain Zionists' success vis-a-vis western establishments. A lot of movements had similar (or better) mechanisms: the labor unions, the communists, the mafia, the IRA (in the US), you name it -- nevertheless, they were attacked by the establishment and defeated (or at least restrained).

    Also, there were other movements with similar status; to pick one: the Afghan mujahideen movement in the 80s. "These gentlemen are the moral equivalent of the founding fathers." Was that beneficial to the 'US national interests'? I don't think so.

    Mearsheimer/Walt presume parasitic relations, but I say it's symbiotic with the US establishment: Israel serves their purpose - and that's the only (but important) difference.

    A lot of movements had similar (or better) mechanisms:… — nevertheless, they were attacked by the establishment and defeated (or at least restrained).

    The only difference being this: we’re not at that stage, yet. We’ve just now reached the cusp of the body (politic’s ) immune system fighting back against these threats.

    Mearsheimer/Walt presume parasitic relations, but I say it’s symbiotic with the US establishment…

    I agree that the US establishment is benefiting from these policies. No argument there. My point is that the majority of the American people are undoubtedly being harmed by them… and that is what I think the two professors have brought to light.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    the American people are undoubtedly being harmed by them
     
    Of course they are. I mean, just take the 9/11/2001 attacks - the (presumed) organizer of them, Mohammed Atta, was motivated by the US support for Israel. His German (I believe?) roommate reported that reading about Zionist atrocities in Palestine was making him physically sick. That's a strong stuff. And, aside from the 'bad karma' in general, it's also very-very dangerous, having a billion+ people hating your guts with great intensity...
  79. @geokat62

    A lot of movements had similar (or better) mechanisms:... — nevertheless, they were attacked by the establishment and defeated (or at least restrained).
     
    The only difference being this: we're not at that stage, yet. We've just now reached the cusp of the body (politic's ) immune system fighting back against these threats.

    Mearsheimer/Walt presume parasitic relations, but I say it’s symbiotic with the US establishment...
     
    I agree that the US establishment is benefiting from these policies. No argument there. My point is that the majority of the American people are undoubtedly being harmed by them... and that is what I think the two professors have brought to light.

    the American people are undoubtedly being harmed by them

    Of course they are. I mean, just take the 9/11/2001 attacks – the (presumed) organizer of them, Mohammed Atta, was motivated by the US support for Israel. His German (I believe?) roommate reported that reading about Zionist atrocities in Palestine was making him physically sick. That’s a strong stuff. And, aside from the ‘bad karma’ in general, it’s also very-very dangerous, having a billion+ people hating your guts with great intensity…

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    the (presumed) organizer of them, Mohammed Atta, was motivated by the US support for Israel.
     
    Exactly:

    The 9/11 Commission Report determined that the animosity towards the United States felt by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the "principal architect" of the 9/11 attacks, stemmed "not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." The same motivation was shared by the two pilots, Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, who flew into the WTC: Atta was described by Ralph Bodenstein—who traveled, worked and talked with him, as "most imbued actually about... U.S. protection of these Israeli politics in the region." "When someone asked why he and Atta never laughed, Shehhi retorted, "How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?" - 9/11 Report. Abdulaziz al-Omari, a hijacker aboard Flight 11 with Mohammed Atta, said in his video will, "My work is a message those who heard me and to all those who saw me at the same time it is a message to the infidels that you should leave the Arabian peninsula defeated and stop giving a hand of help to the coward Jews in Palestine." - Guardian
     
  80. geokat62 says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    the American people are undoubtedly being harmed by them
     
    Of course they are. I mean, just take the 9/11/2001 attacks - the (presumed) organizer of them, Mohammed Atta, was motivated by the US support for Israel. His German (I believe?) roommate reported that reading about Zionist atrocities in Palestine was making him physically sick. That's a strong stuff. And, aside from the 'bad karma' in general, it's also very-very dangerous, having a billion+ people hating your guts with great intensity...

    the (presumed) organizer of them, Mohammed Atta, was motivated by the US support for Israel.

    Exactly:

    The 9/11 Commission Report determined that the animosity towards the United States felt by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the “principal architect” of the 9/11 attacks, stemmed “not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.” The same motivation was shared by the two pilots, Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, who flew into the WTC: Atta was described by Ralph Bodenstein—who traveled, worked and talked with him, as “most imbued actually about… U.S. protection of these Israeli politics in the region.” “When someone asked why he and Atta never laughed, Shehhi retorted, “How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?” – 9/11 Report. Abdulaziz al-Omari, a hijacker aboard Flight 11 with Mohammed Atta, said in his video will, “My work is a message those who heard me and to all those who saw me at the same time it is a message to the infidels that you should leave the Arabian peninsula defeated and stop giving a hand of help to the coward Jews in Palestine.” – Guardian

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Oh, please. The 9/11 Commission Report? Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? Mohammed Atta? Quoting The Guardian?

    Is it happy hour already? Why the fairy tales?
  81. @geokat62

    the (presumed) organizer of them, Mohammed Atta, was motivated by the US support for Israel.
     
    Exactly:

    The 9/11 Commission Report determined that the animosity towards the United States felt by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the "principal architect" of the 9/11 attacks, stemmed "not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." The same motivation was shared by the two pilots, Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, who flew into the WTC: Atta was described by Ralph Bodenstein—who traveled, worked and talked with him, as "most imbued actually about... U.S. protection of these Israeli politics in the region." "When someone asked why he and Atta never laughed, Shehhi retorted, "How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?" - 9/11 Report. Abdulaziz al-Omari, a hijacker aboard Flight 11 with Mohammed Atta, said in his video will, "My work is a message those who heard me and to all those who saw me at the same time it is a message to the infidels that you should leave the Arabian peninsula defeated and stop giving a hand of help to the coward Jews in Palestine." - Guardian
     

    Oh, please. The 9/11 Commission Report? Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? Mohammed Atta? Quoting The Guardian?

    Is it happy hour already? Why the fairy tales?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Is it happy hour already? Why the fairy tales?
     
    Ok, so I am guilty of propagating fairy tales. What about Ron Paul?

    Ron Paul: 9/11 Attacks Product of U.S. Foreign Policy

    Congressman Ron Paul is holding steady in early polls—even pulling ahead of Michele Bachmann in Gallup’s report last week—prompting many to ask why he isn’t getting more attention from the press. (The Washington Post provides its own explanation here.) But while we were busy not covering Paul this weekend, the Des Moines Register was. The Iowa paper reports:

    Two weeks away from the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, presidential candidate and Texas Rep. Ron Paul says that U.S. intervention in the Middle East is a main motivation behind terrorist hostilities toward America, and that Islam is not a threat to the nation.

    At a campaign stop on Saturday in Winterset, one man asked Paul how terrorist groups would react if the U.S. removed its military presence in Middle Eastern nations, a move the candidate advocates.

    “Which enemy are you worried that will attack our national security?” Paul asked.

    “If you’re looking for specifics, I’m talking about Islam. Radical Islam,” the man answered.

    “I don’t see Islam as our enemy,” Paul said. “I see that motivation is occupation and those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate.”

    Regarding 9/11, Paul said that attacks against the U.S. from Middle Eastern groups at home and abroad can be traced to the foreign presence of U.S. troops, as well as America’s relationships with dictator regimes.

    Paul referred to a military base in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, as a key motivator in the Sept. 11th attacks. Osama bin Laden viewed it as an American desecration of holy land.

    “After 9/11, (people said) ‘Oh yeah, it’s those very bad people who hate us,’ but 15 of (the hijackers) came from Saudi Arabia,” said Paul. “One of the reasons they attacked us, is we propped up this Sharia government and the fundamentalists hated us for it.”
     
  82. @Mao Cheng Ji
    You lost me: who is that Israeli, and why are you complaining to me?

    National interest (of the whole population) can't be explained, it needs to emerge as a consensus. To reach the consensus, nation needs a mechanism. My personal preference is the Swiss system: localism and direct democracy.

    Suit yourself.

    Read More
  83. geokat62 says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Oh, please. The 9/11 Commission Report? Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? Mohammed Atta? Quoting The Guardian?

    Is it happy hour already? Why the fairy tales?

    Is it happy hour already? Why the fairy tales?

    Ok, so I am guilty of propagating fairy tales. What about Ron Paul?

    [MORE]

    Ron Paul: 9/11 Attacks Product of U.S. Foreign Policy

    Congressman Ron Paul is holding steady in early polls—even pulling ahead of Michele Bachmann in Gallup’s report last week—prompting many to ask why he isn’t getting more attention from the press. (The Washington Post provides its own explanation here.) But while we were busy not covering Paul this weekend, the Des Moines Register was. The Iowa paper reports:

    Two weeks away from the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, presidential candidate and Texas Rep. Ron Paul says that U.S. intervention in the Middle East is a main motivation behind terrorist hostilities toward America, and that Islam is not a threat to the nation.

    At a campaign stop on Saturday in Winterset, one man asked Paul how terrorist groups would react if the U.S. removed its military presence in Middle Eastern nations, a move the candidate advocates.

    “Which enemy are you worried that will attack our national security?” Paul asked.

    “If you’re looking for specifics, I’m talking about Islam. Radical Islam,” the man answered.

    “I don’t see Islam as our enemy,” Paul said. “I see that motivation is occupation and those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate.”

    Regarding 9/11, Paul said that attacks against the U.S. from Middle Eastern groups at home and abroad can be traced to the foreign presence of U.S. troops, as well as America’s relationships with dictator regimes.

    Paul referred to a military base in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, as a key motivator in the Sept. 11th attacks. Osama bin Laden viewed it as an American desecration of holy land.

    “After 9/11, (people said) ‘Oh yeah, it’s those very bad people who hate us,’ but 15 of (the hijackers) came from Saudi Arabia,” said Paul. “One of the reasons they attacked us, is we propped up this Sharia government and the fundamentalists hated us for it.”

    Read More
  84. The US should have glassed the nasty shitty state after the Liberty atrocity.

    Read More
  85. Boris N says:

    The alleged threat by Stalin’s USSR was highly exaggerated and the reaction of the American establishment was out of limits. It was a crazed panic. Neither Stalin intended to conquer America nor he wanted the world revolution (search for “Socialism in one country”). Someone must have confused him with Trotsky. What he only did was had created a belt of buffer states to prevent a possible repeat of Hitler’s success, and a bomb to prevent a new Hiroshima.

    Moreover even if there were such intentions what could communism do bad to America? It was only the 1% who had to be worried, because they would lost their wealth and the control over America, the remaining 99% hardly had anything to loose. The majority of Americans today despise the 1% more than any communist despised capitalists back then (Stalin actually had successful business relationships with American industrialists to rebuild the USSR in the 1930s). The very rhetoric of the “Occupy” movement resembles communism! Somewhen in the 1950s all those “occupiers” would be labeled as commie traitors and spies.
    (Note I’m not a communism apologist, quite the contrary, but who knows how the world looked like if there were no Cold War, but a communist America. If Russia failed at communism and committed a multitude of terrible and homicidal failures and errors, it does not necessary mean communism is hopeless and evil per se. East Germany and Czechoslovakia were good examples of “socialism with a human face”. Why couldn’t America be another even better example?)

    More than 60 have passed and Americans frankly and sincerely believe in the past propaganda. How can you blame “Russian Scare” alarmists now? You are hardly different. Another 60 years would pass and people would believe that the Russian threat was real in the 2010s. Nothing new, though, the Russian Scare has existed since the 16th century.

    Read More
  86. Boris N says:
    @Anonymous
    Gotta disagree with this. Communism killed many millions of Europeans and if Communism had spread, many more would've died. There may well have been a WWIII from an emboldened Soviet Union as well.

    Communism doesn't preserve the culture. One of the first things Communists do is take a steam roller across the culture and crush away anything that doesn't support their ascendancy- religion, history, diverse cultures within the main culture (in America, we'd be talking about Northern vs. Southern Heritage, or aspects of English, vs. German, vs. Netherlands, vs. Scots-Irish, etc - you get the idea. These are even broader in countries that have been around for much longer); many things may get discarded for not being communist enough, such as traditions, even cuisine. People are also moved around and lose ties to their region that their family may have been linked to for centuries. The people end up with a much shallower culture.

    And all of this is not even mentioning the depths of the nightmare that's inflicted upon the people who have to live there. The point that third worlders don't want to move there because it's a dump isn't really a plus.

    It does seem to make them highly resistant to government nonsense such as political correctness, cultural marxist ideas like everyone being exactly equal, "that's not who we are", etc., I'll give you that. But I get the feeling that most whites in the West also see through it, even if they pretend not to. When there are polls about these lefty talking points like amnesty for illegals, anywhere from 2/3 to 80-90% of the public disagrees. And Trump's rise even in the face of the mega-tsunami of media damnation shows it as well. They just can't verbalize it for fear of reprisal, and the media plays a little game to make it appear like they are alone in what the majority actually agrees with. It may be that the whites of the West just haven't reached their boiling point enough to rid themselves of governments that act against them (or maybe just now getting there), whereas Eastern Europeans have already seen the horrors enough to stop the BS before it gets far.

    Always remember that Communism is a 100% Western ideology. And Russia has hardly anything to do with it. The fact that Russia has failed at it shows that Russia and Western ideologies are incompatible. The East is not the West and so on. The East simply misunderstood the craziness of those Western ideas and it was its gravely mistake. It is really hypocritical that you spread your ideology on a foreign country and then blame and demonize the country for having your own ideas. So the spread of communism in Europe right after WWII was a comeback of what they had created. It is only unfair that Western Europe itself did not pay for its Marx and Engels and have not experienced Communism in full. I think the world history of the 20th century has all gone wrong. It must have been the crazy Communist West against capitalist traditionalist Russia, China and the rest of the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RSDB

    The fact that Russia has failed at it shows that Russia and Western ideologies are incompatible
     
    Not exactly; everyone who has tried a Marxist system has failed, because communism is a false ideology. The reason nobody ever got further than "socialism" (using the Marxist term) is that "socialism" and the dictatorship of the proletariat do not in fact lead to the state withering away and the advent of ideal communism.

    Yes, everybody thought for a while Germany would be the center of whatever new socialism emerged. Per Marxist theory, iirc, the revolution should have happened in Germany or England or America, the most thoroughly industrialized countries. But, as I said earlier, Marxist theory is wrong.

    I'd tend to believe Stalin if not for Spain, Finland (a communist government was set up but never took power for obvious reasons), China, Korea, etc.

    There are non-Marxist meanings of "socialism", and some of these are okay systems of government. But Marxism in one country was never going to work on a permanent basis.

    I'm not the "anonymous" you responded to, in case you were wondering.

    Cheers,
    RSDB
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    The fact that Russia has failed
     
    Well, I don't think the Soviet Union had failed, exactly. Its effect on the world has been tremendous, hard to overstate. The west had to compete, to adapt, to hybridize itself. The ideas of a 'welfare state', 'social safety net', 'public sector', 'public services' were created, and they seem perfectly normal to us now.

    The public sector in Norway amounts to about a third of the economy, while their productivity is one of the highest in the world.

    For the first experiment in history, that's a success, I'd say...
  87. RSDB says:
    @Boris N
    Always remember that Communism is a 100% Western ideology. And Russia has hardly anything to do with it. The fact that Russia has failed at it shows that Russia and Western ideologies are incompatible. The East is not the West and so on. The East simply misunderstood the craziness of those Western ideas and it was its gravely mistake. It is really hypocritical that you spread your ideology on a foreign country and then blame and demonize the country for having your own ideas. So the spread of communism in Europe right after WWII was a comeback of what they had created. It is only unfair that Western Europe itself did not pay for its Marx and Engels and have not experienced Communism in full. I think the world history of the 20th century has all gone wrong. It must have been the crazy Communist West against capitalist traditionalist Russia, China and the rest of the world.

    The fact that Russia has failed at it shows that Russia and Western ideologies are incompatible

    Not exactly; everyone who has tried a Marxist system has failed, because communism is a false ideology. The reason nobody ever got further than “socialism” (using the Marxist term) is that “socialism” and the dictatorship of the proletariat do not in fact lead to the state withering away and the advent of ideal communism.

    Yes, everybody thought for a while Germany would be the center of whatever new socialism emerged. Per Marxist theory, iirc, the revolution should have happened in Germany or England or America, the most thoroughly industrialized countries. But, as I said earlier, Marxist theory is wrong.

    I’d tend to believe Stalin if not for Spain, Finland (a communist government was set up but never took power for obvious reasons), China, Korea, etc.

    There are non-Marxist meanings of “socialism”, and some of these are okay systems of government. But Marxism in one country was never going to work on a permanent basis.

    I’m not the “anonymous” you responded to, in case you were wondering.

    Cheers,
    RSDB

    Read More
  88. @Boris N
    Always remember that Communism is a 100% Western ideology. And Russia has hardly anything to do with it. The fact that Russia has failed at it shows that Russia and Western ideologies are incompatible. The East is not the West and so on. The East simply misunderstood the craziness of those Western ideas and it was its gravely mistake. It is really hypocritical that you spread your ideology on a foreign country and then blame and demonize the country for having your own ideas. So the spread of communism in Europe right after WWII was a comeback of what they had created. It is only unfair that Western Europe itself did not pay for its Marx and Engels and have not experienced Communism in full. I think the world history of the 20th century has all gone wrong. It must have been the crazy Communist West against capitalist traditionalist Russia, China and the rest of the world.

    The fact that Russia has failed

    Well, I don’t think the Soviet Union had failed, exactly. Its effect on the world has been tremendous, hard to overstate. The west had to compete, to adapt, to hybridize itself. The ideas of a ‘welfare state’, ‘social safety net’, ‘public sector’, ‘public services’ were created, and they seem perfectly normal to us now.

    The public sector in Norway amounts to about a third of the economy, while their productivity is one of the highest in the world.

    For the first experiment in history, that’s a success, I’d say…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RSDB
    "Russia has failed at it", i.e. implementing Marxism. I don't know if Scandinavian-style socialism is sustainable; I rather hope so, but it isn't Marxism. Socialist ideas were floating around for a long time; Imperial Germany in particular was becoming an increasingly paternalist state before 1914. I don't know if the USSR had anything to do with it, but social justice (in an un-ironic sense) of various sorts was a general interwar and postwar trend. It even shows up on Spanish Nationalist posters!

    As Marxist experiments, though, the Communist states have all been failures.
  89. RSDB says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    The fact that Russia has failed
     
    Well, I don't think the Soviet Union had failed, exactly. Its effect on the world has been tremendous, hard to overstate. The west had to compete, to adapt, to hybridize itself. The ideas of a 'welfare state', 'social safety net', 'public sector', 'public services' were created, and they seem perfectly normal to us now.

    The public sector in Norway amounts to about a third of the economy, while their productivity is one of the highest in the world.

    For the first experiment in history, that's a success, I'd say...

    “Russia has failed at it”, i.e. implementing Marxism. I don’t know if Scandinavian-style socialism is sustainable; I rather hope so, but it isn’t Marxism. Socialist ideas were floating around for a long time; Imperial Germany in particular was becoming an increasingly paternalist state before 1914. I don’t know if the USSR had anything to do with it, but social justice (in an un-ironic sense) of various sorts was a general interwar and postwar trend. It even shows up on Spanish Nationalist posters!

    As Marxist experiments, though, the Communist states have all been failures.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    I'm not sure what you mean by 'marxism' here. 'Marxism' could be defined as simply a toolbox for analyzing socioeconomic phenomena: historical materialism and political economy; class struggle, LTV, the surplus-labor, etc. These are just analytic tools.

    But you probably mean Marx's revolutionary activism, the communist manifesto? That was written in 1848 and based on the conditions of that time and place. That wasn't a scientific theory, it was just a political proclamation. It wasn't meant to serve as the blueprint for all times and conditions.

    No, I don't think marxism (historical materialism) has failed. The Soviet Union (the first experiment) was not flexible enough, but look at China... China managed to hybridize itself, and it's now quickly becoming the most powerful society in the world. And its economy is (by some estimates) ~60% state-controlled... No, the jury is still out, the fat lady hasn't sung yet...
  90. @RSDB
    "Russia has failed at it", i.e. implementing Marxism. I don't know if Scandinavian-style socialism is sustainable; I rather hope so, but it isn't Marxism. Socialist ideas were floating around for a long time; Imperial Germany in particular was becoming an increasingly paternalist state before 1914. I don't know if the USSR had anything to do with it, but social justice (in an un-ironic sense) of various sorts was a general interwar and postwar trend. It even shows up on Spanish Nationalist posters!

    As Marxist experiments, though, the Communist states have all been failures.

    I’m not sure what you mean by ‘marxism’ here. ‘Marxism’ could be defined as simply a toolbox for analyzing socioeconomic phenomena: historical materialism and political economy; class struggle, LTV, the surplus-labor, etc. These are just analytic tools.

    But you probably mean Marx’s revolutionary activism, the communist manifesto? That was written in 1848 and based on the conditions of that time and place. That wasn’t a scientific theory, it was just a political proclamation. It wasn’t meant to serve as the blueprint for all times and conditions.

    No, I don’t think marxism (historical materialism) has failed. The Soviet Union (the first experiment) was not flexible enough, but look at China… China managed to hybridize itself, and it’s now quickly becoming the most powerful society in the world. And its economy is (by some estimates) ~60% state-controlled… No, the jury is still out, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RSDB
    By Marxism I meant Marxism-Leninism, the governing philosophy of the Soviet Union and of the Third International. "Diamat" too, of course. State control of the economy is interesting but, again, not particularly what I was talking about. Same with the enormous collection of Marxist terminology and methods of analysis. I should have put it that way.

    I don't know too much about China and I freely admit that I may be wrong with respect to it. My impressions were that Deng's reforms had greatly altered the mechanism of government and the economic model, but you are probably much more aware of these things than I am, and so I will leave off discussing China and qualify my statement about Communist states accordingly.

    Nevertheless, the USSR, as an exemplar of its governing philosophy, and from the perspective of Russians and other non-Chinese, can be said to have failed.

    I don't think we're really arguing here, we're saying much the same thing with different emphasis (and vague terminology on my part, sorry).

    Santé,
    RS Bremner

  91. RSDB says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    I'm not sure what you mean by 'marxism' here. 'Marxism' could be defined as simply a toolbox for analyzing socioeconomic phenomena: historical materialism and political economy; class struggle, LTV, the surplus-labor, etc. These are just analytic tools.

    But you probably mean Marx's revolutionary activism, the communist manifesto? That was written in 1848 and based on the conditions of that time and place. That wasn't a scientific theory, it was just a political proclamation. It wasn't meant to serve as the blueprint for all times and conditions.

    No, I don't think marxism (historical materialism) has failed. The Soviet Union (the first experiment) was not flexible enough, but look at China... China managed to hybridize itself, and it's now quickly becoming the most powerful society in the world. And its economy is (by some estimates) ~60% state-controlled... No, the jury is still out, the fat lady hasn't sung yet...

    By Marxism I meant Marxism-Leninism, the governing philosophy of the Soviet Union and of the Third International. “Diamat” too, of course. State control of the economy is interesting but, again, not particularly what I was talking about. Same with the enormous collection of Marxist terminology and methods of analysis. I should have put it that way.

    I don’t know too much about China and I freely admit that I may be wrong with respect to it. My impressions were that Deng’s reforms had greatly altered the mechanism of government and the economic model, but you are probably much more aware of these things than I am, and so I will leave off discussing China and qualify my statement about Communist states accordingly.

    Nevertheless, the USSR, as an exemplar of its governing philosophy, and from the perspective of Russians and other non-Chinese, can be said to have failed.

    I don’t think we’re really arguing here, we’re saying much the same thing with different emphasis (and vague terminology on my part, sorry).

    Santé,
    RS Bremner

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    I'm not really Chinese; Mao Cheng Ji is the title of a book (The City of Cats, by Lao She).

    I think state (or some form of collective) control of the economy (vs private property of the means of production) is exactly the essence of this whole idea. Incidentally, in 1921-22 Lenin introduced NEP (mixed public-private economy, very successful, but cancelled by Stalin after a few years), which was, I believe, very similar to the Chinese liberalization introduced around 1978. So, yes, the Soviet post-NEP model of nearly total nationalization didn't survive, obviously, but what I'm trying to say is that the idea is still evolving.

    Anyway, thanks for the polite replies, and cheers to you too...
  92. @RSDB
    By Marxism I meant Marxism-Leninism, the governing philosophy of the Soviet Union and of the Third International. "Diamat" too, of course. State control of the economy is interesting but, again, not particularly what I was talking about. Same with the enormous collection of Marxist terminology and methods of analysis. I should have put it that way.

    I don't know too much about China and I freely admit that I may be wrong with respect to it. My impressions were that Deng's reforms had greatly altered the mechanism of government and the economic model, but you are probably much more aware of these things than I am, and so I will leave off discussing China and qualify my statement about Communist states accordingly.

    Nevertheless, the USSR, as an exemplar of its governing philosophy, and from the perspective of Russians and other non-Chinese, can be said to have failed.

    I don't think we're really arguing here, we're saying much the same thing with different emphasis (and vague terminology on my part, sorry).

    Santé,
    RS Bremner

    I’m not really Chinese; Mao Cheng Ji is the title of a book (The City of Cats, by Lao She).

    I think state (or some form of collective) control of the economy (vs private property of the means of production) is exactly the essence of this whole idea. Incidentally, in 1921-22 Lenin introduced NEP (mixed public-private economy, very successful, but cancelled by Stalin after a few years), which was, I believe, very similar to the Chinese liberalization introduced around 1978. So, yes, the Soviet post-NEP model of nearly total nationalization didn’t survive, obviously, but what I’m trying to say is that the idea is still evolving.

    Anyway, thanks for the polite replies, and cheers to you too…

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.