The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Macron: The Last Multilateralist
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

“Together,” President Macron instructed President Trump, “we can resist the rise of aggressive nationalisms that deny our history and divide the world.”

Before Congress he denounced “extreme nationalism,” invoked the U.N., NATO, WTO, and Paris climate accord, and implored Trump’s America to come home to the New World Order.

“The United States is the one who invented this multilateralism,” Macron went on, “you are the one now who has to help preserve and reinvent it.”

His visit was hailed and his views cheered, but, on reflection, the ideas of Emmanuel Macron seem to be less about tomorrow than yesterday.

For the world he celebrates is receding into history.

The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into an endless U.S. commitment to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its own defense.

Since the WTO was created in the mid-’90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits; and among the biggest beneficiaries — the EU.

Under the Paris climate accord, environmental restrictions are put upon the United States from which China is exempt.

As for the U.N., is that sinkhole of anti-Americanism, the General Assembly, really worth the scores of billions we have plunged into it?

“Aggressive nationalism” is a term that might well fit Napoleon Bonaparte whose Arc de Triomphe sits on the Champs-Elysees. But does it really fit the Hungarians, Poles, Brits, Scots, Catalans and other indigenous peoples of Europe who are now using democratic methods and means to preserve a national home for the unique peoples to whom they belong?

And the United States would seem an odd place to go about venting on “aggressive nationalisms that deny our history.”

Did Macron not learn at the Lycee Henri IV in Paris or the Ecole Nationale d’Administration how the Americans acquired all that land?

General Washington, at whose Mount Vernon home Macron dined, was a nationalist who fought for six years to sever America’s ties to the nation under which he was born.

How does Macron think Andrew Jackson acquired Florida from Spain, Sam Houston acquired Texas from Mexico, and Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor acquired the Southwest? By bartering?

Aggressive nationalism is a good synonym for the Manifest Destiny of a republic that went about relieving Spain of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.

How does Macron think the “New World” was conquered and colonized if not by aggressive British, French and Spanish nationalists determined to impose their rule upon weaker indigenous tribes?

Was it not nationalism that broke up the USSR into 15 nations?

Was not the Zionist movement that resurrected Israel in 1948, and, in 1967, captured the West Bank, and then annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, a manifestation of aggressive nationalism?

Macron is an echo of that George H.W. Bush who, in Kiev in 1991, warned Ukrainians against the “suicidal nationalism” of declaring independence from the Russian Federation.

“Aggressive nationalisms … divide the world,” warns Macron.

Well, yes, they do, which is why we have now 194 members of the U.N., rather than the original 50. Is this a problem?

“Together,” said Macron, “we will build a new, strong multilateralism that defends pluralism and democracy in the face of ill winds.”

Macron belongs to a political class that sees open borders and free trade thickening and tightening the ties of dependency, and eventually creating a One Europe, whose destiny his crowd will forever control.

ORDER IT NOW

But if his idea of pluralism is multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural nations, with a multilateral EU overlord, he is describing a future that tens millions of Europeans believe means the death of the nations that give meaning to their lives.
And they will not go gentle into that good night.

In America, too, millions have come to recognize that there is a method to the seeming madness of open borders. Name of the game: dispossessing the deplorables of the country they love.

With open borders and mass migration of over a million people a year into the USA, almost all of them peoples of color from Third World countries who vote 70-90 percent Democratic, the left is foreclosing the future. The left is converting the greatest country of the West into what Teddy Roosevelt called a “polyglot boarding house for the world.” And in that boarding house the left will have a lock on the presidency.

With the collaboration of co-conspirators in the media, progressives throw a cloak of altruism over the cynical seizure of permanent power.

For, as the millions of immigrants, here legally and illegally, register, and the vote is extended to prison inmates, ex-cons and 16-year-olds, the political complexion of America will come to resemble San Francisco.

End goal: Ensure that what happened in 2016, when the nation rose up and threw out a despised establishment, never happens again.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2018 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Emmanuel Macron, France, Nationalism 
Hide 50 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Randal says:

    The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into an endless U.S. commitment to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its own defense.

    This is a pretty absurd position, frankly, given that the US regime’s wars, and the manufactured confrontation of Russia, have been no more in the interests of the nations of Europe than they have been fought for the interests of the American people.

    Rather the wars waged by the US, and by its “comprador” elites running the governments of its European poodles, have been fought for the interests of Israel, of Saudi Arabia and of the various lobbies and elites able to “influence” US government policies and manufacture consent for wars in the countries of the US sphere, including the aforementioned European elites (exemplified by Emmanuel Macron and his exemplar Tony Blair).

    NATO is better understood as a mechanism to implement an implicit deal whereby the US pays to retain control of the military capabilities of the countries forming its European sphere.

    I’ve been hearing the absurd complaints from misguided American patriots (and neocon US liars) that Europe and the UK somehow “don’t pay their way” for defence for nearly three decades now, since the day NATO should have been ended when its only plausible raison d’etre – the Soviet threat – disappeared. The truth is that any American patriot with a clear view of reality should be calling not for the European countries to pay more, but for NATO to be terminated and for their own country’s policies of military intervention likewise to be terminated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @byrresheim
    Very true.

    Also true for any patriot of the other countries concerned.
    , @Rurik
    One of the encouraging things Trump used to say was that NATO was obsolete and should be disbanded.

    After weeks of being lobbied, cajoled and educated by the leaders of Britain and Germany, not to mention “my generals,” as he likes to call his national security team, Mr. Trump has found fresh virtue in a venerable organization.

     

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/world/europe/nato-trump.html
    , @El Dato
    Exactly this.

    And it's made worse by Pat talking about a "U.S. commitment to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe". Something out an alternate history, bizarro world, or a decaying mind.

    Pat also doesn't know how "trade deficits" work

    Since the WTO was created in the mid-’90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits; and among the biggest beneficiaries — the EU.

    What exactly is the "beneficiary of a trade deficit"? Is it the side that imports more than it can pay for or the side which exports more than it can get paid for?

    And do US machinations to cut the EU off from Russian gas and provide expensive US ship-carried LPG in stead figure into this.

    In any case, any trade imbalance would swiftly vanish if debt were rated at its true value and exchange rates were allowed to balance out. Something that so-called "central banks" (more like wealth-transfer institutions with a license to truly, utterly kill) have been created for to keep from happening.

    It's time to stop writing, Pat!

    , @Catiline
    I would go further and advocate for Europe to occupy us instead.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Randal says:

    Macron belongs to a political class that sees open borders and free trade thickening and tightening the ties of dependency, and eventually creating a One Europe, whose destiny his crowd will forever control.

    But if his idea of pluralism is multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural nations, with a multilateral EU overlord, he is describing a future that tens millions of Europeans believe means the death of the nations that give meaning to their lives.

    The political class in question is one that believes nations are obsolete artefacts of past limited travel and communications, doomed by modern technology to fade into a world of essentially arbitrary subdivisions, for administrative convenience, into regions run “democratically” and necessarily sharing their own decadent ideas of morality based upon radical leftist social liberalism. That’s “the arc of history”, and they believe that to stand against it is both futile and inherently evil.

    The problem is that on one level they are correct – nations (and the races upon which they are often most soundly based) are indeed artefacts of past limits on communication and travel. Whether meaningful national differences with geographical bases can be sustained long term in a world of effectively unlimited communications and almost free travel remains to be seen. With proper protection of sovereignty and borders, perhaps for a long time, at least.

    We should have a damned good try, anyway, because the alternative on offer from the radical social liberals/globalists can only end in global unified government under the rule of the likes of Bush, Clinton, Obama, Blair, Cameron, May , Merkel and Macron, and the end of human liberty and progress.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Catiline
    PJB wants nationalism in order to control smaller polities and set them fighting against one another in the interests of Anglo=American hegemony.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Realist says:

    Before Congress he denounced “extreme nationalism,” invoked the U.N., NATO, WTO, and Paris climate accord, and implored Trump’s America to come home to the New World Order.

    More Globalist crap.

    As for the U.N., is that sinkhole of anti-Americanism, the General Assembly, really worth the scores of billions we have plunged into it?

    Why do you say anti-Americanism? You sound like a Deep State propagandist..It is more anti-hegemony.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. KenH says:

    I’ll take Macron more seriously when he denounces the extreme nationalism of our bestest, greatest and only ally in the Middle East and their racially restrictive immigration and economic nationalist policies. And while he’s at it he can attack the religious extremism of his own problematic Muslim minority, but then that would probably lead to more truck attacks and criticism of non-whites and non-Christians is totally off limits and a hate crime in the West.

    …almost all of them peoples of color from Third World countries who vote 70-90 percent Democratic, the left is foreclosing the future.

    The future for whites who love the old America and don’t hate themselves, otherwise known as the deplorables, is very grim indeed. But there’s hope. Regarding illegal aliens, talk radio cuck Rush Limbaugh said that twenty years is the approximate incubation period for them to change from gibsmedat third world tribalists into Republican voting race neutralists with a love of the constitution and free market.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Macron belongs to a political class that sees open borders and free trade thickening and tightening the ties of dependency, and eventually creating a One Europe, whose destiny his crowd will forever control.

    What a pleasure to read those particular gems of truth in a fine article.

    PS: Thanks for mentioning the hideously aggressive nationalism of Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Macron said:

    "Together we will build a new, strong multilateralism that defends pluralism and democracy in the face of ill winds.”

    Yeah boy, a 'European pluralistic democracy' which arrests people for Free Speech & Thought Crimes because Jews instruct them to... who then support a JEWS ONLY 'Israel'.

    Below is where free speech on the impossible 'holocaust' storyline is illegal, violators go to prison for Thought Crimes.
    An obvious admission that the storyline doesn't stand up to scientific, logical, & rational scrutiny.

    http://theday.co.uk/images/stories/2016/2016-12/2016-12-15_holocaust.png

    www.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Rurik says:

    to preserve a national home for the unique peoples to whom they belong?

    racism much Pat?

    Was not the Zionist movement that resurrected Israel in 1948, and, in 1967, captured the West Bank, and then annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, a manifestation of aggressive nationalism?

    That’s different!!!

    All the other examples of ‘aggressive nationalism’ that you mention are the acts of racists and oppressors taking other people’s land.

    Whereas Israel is simply taking land that was theirs from the beginning! God gave that land to the Jews of Poland and Lithuania and Russia and Ukraine, etc.. before they were even Jews!

    Bibi has more right to kill Arabs and steal their land than the so-called French do to keep theirs! Did God Himself say that the land of France should belong to the Gauls for perpetuity just because they’ve been there for centuries? I don’t remember reading in your Bible Pat, where God said he gave that land to the Celts or Gauls or anyone else, so why shouldn’t Africans and others inherit it?

    Besides, there’s no such thing as “unique peoples”, since that’s a prima facia racist statement!

    The only people God loves are the chosen, and so they are the only unique peoples, if you’ve read your Bible Pat, which you clearly like to interpret selectively.

    Never Again compare Israel to those genocidal racists in America or Europe. That is a blood libel, and you know better!

    that tens millions of Europeans believe means the death of the nations that give meaning to their [racist] lives.
    And they will not go gentle into that good night.

    fixed it for you Pat ;)

    and if they won’t go gently, then there are other methods.

    Name of the game: dispossessing the [racist] deplorables of the country they love.

    fixed it

    With the collaboration of co-conspirators in the media, progressives throw a cloak of altruism over the cynical seizure of permanent power.

    “co-conspirators” Pat? Really?

    why not just say it Pat???

    End goal: Ensure that what happened in 2016, when the nation rose up and threw out a despised establishment, never happens again.

    no Pat, that is not the end goal. That is merely a means to the ‘end goal’.

    This is the end goal

    ‘ a [zio]-boot stamping on a human face – forever.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    “Did God Himself say that the land of France should belong to the Gauls for perpetuity just because they’ve been there for centuries?"

    Minor correction.

    “Did God Himself say that the land of France should belong to the Franks for perpetuity just because they’ve been there for centuries?”

    Carry on.

    PS. Now’d be a good time for a card to your great-great-great granddaughter Anne on next months 967th anniversary of her marriage to bon Capétien Henri I de France (19 May 1051).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Jason Liu says:

    My dream is a new multilateralism that brings together nationalist countries around the world to compete with liberal multilateralism. But that’s probably unlikely due to the combative nature of nationalism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Incitatus says:
    @Rurik

    to preserve a national home for the unique peoples to whom they belong?
     
    racism much Pat?

    Was not the Zionist movement that resurrected Israel in 1948, and, in 1967, captured the West Bank, and then annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, a manifestation of aggressive nationalism?
     
    That's different!!!

    All the other examples of 'aggressive nationalism' that you mention are the acts of racists and oppressors taking other people's land.

    Whereas Israel is simply taking land that was theirs from the beginning! God gave that land to the Jews of Poland and Lithuania and Russia and Ukraine, etc.. before they were even Jews!

    Bibi has more right to kill Arabs and steal their land than the so-called French do to keep theirs! Did God Himself say that the land of France should belong to the Gauls for perpetuity just because they've been there for centuries? I don't remember reading in your Bible Pat, where God said he gave that land to the Celts or Gauls or anyone else, so why shouldn't Africans and others inherit it?

    Besides, there's no such thing as "unique peoples", since that's a prima facia racist statement!

    The only people God loves are the chosen, and so they are the only unique peoples, if you've read your Bible Pat, which you clearly like to interpret selectively.

    Never Again compare Israel to those genocidal racists in America or Europe. That is a blood libel, and you know better!

    that tens millions of Europeans believe means the death of the nations that give meaning to their [racist] lives.
    And they will not go gentle into that good night.
     
    fixed it for you Pat ;)

    and if they won't go gently, then there are other methods.

    Name of the game: dispossessing the [racist] deplorables of the country they love.
     
    fixed it

    With the collaboration of co-conspirators in the media, progressives throw a cloak of altruism over the cynical seizure of permanent power.
     
    "co-conspirators" Pat? Really?

    why not just say it Pat???

    End goal: Ensure that what happened in 2016, when the nation rose up and threw out a despised establishment, never happens again.
     
    no Pat, that is not the end goal. That is merely a means to the 'end goal'.

    This is the end goal

    ' a [zio]-boot stamping on a human face - forever."

    http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2833/10108743093_536c6c1f40_z.jpg

    “Did God Himself say that the land of France should belong to the Gauls for perpetuity just because they’ve been there for centuries?”

    Minor correction.

    “Did God Himself say that the land of France should belong to the Franks for perpetuity just because they’ve been there for centuries?”

    Carry on.

    PS. Now’d be a good time for a card to your great-great-great granddaughter Anne on next months 967th anniversary of her marriage to bon Capétien Henri I de France (19 May 1051).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    good point, thanks

    you know in Michigan there is a town called Frankenmuth, where they wear lederhosen and dirndls and sell stuff like Christmas ornaments or fudge from quaint little shops and such.

    http://www.marvherzoghotel.com/d/marvherzoghotel/media/Frankenmuth/Good_morning_america_chamber-081.jpg

    https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4454/37431915212_e4c71722a2_b.jpg

    But I was curious about the name of the town, which means 'courage of the Franks'

    I thought it interesting that a German town would be named after a Frankish tribe, but then it turns out that the Franks were actually a German tribe going back to the third century AD who invaded Gaul and supplanted the Gauls.

    Not sure why I reverted to the Gauls, perhaps it was a nostalgic whim.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @Randal

    The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into an endless U.S. commitment to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its own defense.
     
    This is a pretty absurd position, frankly, given that the US regime's wars, and the manufactured confrontation of Russia, have been no more in the interests of the nations of Europe than they have been fought for the interests of the American people.

    Rather the wars waged by the US, and by its "comprador" elites running the governments of its European poodles, have been fought for the interests of Israel, of Saudi Arabia and of the various lobbies and elites able to "influence" US government policies and manufacture consent for wars in the countries of the US sphere, including the aforementioned European elites (exemplified by Emmanuel Macron and his exemplar Tony Blair).

    NATO is better understood as a mechanism to implement an implicit deal whereby the US pays to retain control of the military capabilities of the countries forming its European sphere.

    I've been hearing the absurd complaints from misguided American patriots (and neocon US liars) that Europe and the UK somehow "don't pay their way" for defence for nearly three decades now, since the day NATO should have been ended when its only plausible raison d'etre - the Soviet threat - disappeared. The truth is that any American patriot with a clear view of reality should be calling not for the European countries to pay more, but for NATO to be terminated and for their own country's policies of military intervention likewise to be terminated.

    Very true.

    Also true for any patriot of the other countries concerned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into an endless U.S. commitment to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its own defense.

    Surely you jest.

    Apart from the fifth column of the US nobody in Europe wants war with the Russians.

    To tell you the truth: as long as you Americans don’t supply them with literally everything in times of war – from shoe laces to fighter bombers including can openers – to the tune of 20 % of their armament production – we can actually handle them, thank you very much.

    The nice thing: they know it, that’s why they are not overly keen on a replay without the US on their side.

    Thus, NATO is utterly needless if not to keep the Europeans toeing to the line.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    In a war where the USA and China don’t get involved, I’ll take Russia over all of the EU (including formerly-Great formerly-Britain) in a heartbeat.

    And now there’s a new reason to question whether European peoples will be able to defend themselves reliably with “their” militaries: a rapidly growing Muslim fifth column in their countries and, soon enough, in their armed forces.

    Sweden, France, England, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Belgium will be physically and culturally Muslim-dominated and then actually Muslim-majority, in fairly short order, maybe Austria too — I’ll predict that happens before a similar thing happens to Russia (if it ever does happen to Russia).

    The level of daily violence, racial hatred, religious fanaticism, and cultural Balkanization that most of Europe will be suffering, is not conducive to an effective national defense, as it marks the accelerating dissipation of those ethnocultural nations in their entirety.

    In short, with all Russia’s serious demographic and cultural problems, they can readily destroy Europe unless the US intervenes. But it looks like the Europeans are handling that just fine on their own.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Rurik says:
    @Incitatus
    “Did God Himself say that the land of France should belong to the Gauls for perpetuity just because they’ve been there for centuries?"

    Minor correction.

    “Did God Himself say that the land of France should belong to the Franks for perpetuity just because they’ve been there for centuries?”

    Carry on.

    PS. Now’d be a good time for a card to your great-great-great granddaughter Anne on next months 967th anniversary of her marriage to bon Capétien Henri I de France (19 May 1051).

    good point, thanks

    you know in Michigan there is a town called Frankenmuth, where they wear lederhosen and dirndls and sell stuff like Christmas ornaments or fudge from quaint little shops and such.

    But I was curious about the name of the town, which means ‘courage of the Franks’

    I thought it interesting that a German town would be named after a Frankish tribe, but then it turns out that the Franks were actually a German tribe going back to the third century AD who invaded Gaul and supplanted the Gauls.

    Not sure why I reverted to the Gauls, perhaps it was a nostalgic whim.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    Interesting town, Rurik. Little Bavaria honors Frankish courage in Michigan? Hopefully with a unique beer?

    Curious about their ‘50th Anniversary of the Glockenspiel’ (photo). Is Wiki correct “Lutheran immigrants from Roßtal area of Franconia” c.1845?” Could Franconian (Bavarian) courage be the object of the ‘Franken’ namesake? Never mind. Any who risked all to settle in the unknown new world had courage.

    They founded “nearby villages of Frankenlust, Frankentrost, and Frankenhilf”? Wonder what the principle occupation is in Frankenlust? Realtor.com isn’t helpful. Whoever lives there seems to want to stay there.

    You’re correct on Frankish (non-Franconian variety) origins. Could be wrong, but Mérovingiens (Clovis I) and successor Carolingiens spoke a variation of ‘Old High German’ resembling Dutch. Charlemagne spoke it, as well as Latin and some Greek (not bad for the Dark Ages). Naturally both France and Germany claim him. Or did. Their enthusiasm diminishes as political-correctness comes to the fore.

    Makes one pine for Frankenlust.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Rurik says:
    @Randal

    The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into an endless U.S. commitment to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its own defense.
     
    This is a pretty absurd position, frankly, given that the US regime's wars, and the manufactured confrontation of Russia, have been no more in the interests of the nations of Europe than they have been fought for the interests of the American people.

    Rather the wars waged by the US, and by its "comprador" elites running the governments of its European poodles, have been fought for the interests of Israel, of Saudi Arabia and of the various lobbies and elites able to "influence" US government policies and manufacture consent for wars in the countries of the US sphere, including the aforementioned European elites (exemplified by Emmanuel Macron and his exemplar Tony Blair).

    NATO is better understood as a mechanism to implement an implicit deal whereby the US pays to retain control of the military capabilities of the countries forming its European sphere.

    I've been hearing the absurd complaints from misguided American patriots (and neocon US liars) that Europe and the UK somehow "don't pay their way" for defence for nearly three decades now, since the day NATO should have been ended when its only plausible raison d'etre - the Soviet threat - disappeared. The truth is that any American patriot with a clear view of reality should be calling not for the European countries to pay more, but for NATO to be terminated and for their own country's policies of military intervention likewise to be terminated.

    One of the encouraging things Trump used to say was that NATO was obsolete and should be disbanded.

    After weeks of being lobbied, cajoled and educated by the leaders of Britain and Germany, not to mention “my generals,” as he likes to call his national security team, Mr. Trump has found fresh virtue in a venerable organization.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/world/europe/nato-trump.html

    Read More
    • Agree: Byrresheim
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Vojkan says:

    Macron is a creature of the Rotschild bank and Jacques Attali, a Jew notorious for saying that due to ever longer life expectancy, elderly non-productive people will eventually need to be euthanased, to relieve society of the burden they represent. Macron is a bankster. Banksters have no moral sense.
    Macron has married his 24 year older literature teacher, who has a son older than him. People who marry their mummy, sorry mummy fits her more than mommy, have serious psychological issues.
    Macron likes long complicated phrasings with a few pretentious words thrown here and there to impress those who love the music but don’t listen to the lyrics. 90% of his sentences are devoid of any logic and make absolutely no sense, the 10% remaining are fallacies of which every tenth can qualify as sophistry. Yet, Macron is lauded for his rhetorical skills.
    The patriotic right in France had a program, flawed because it sucked up too much to the left, yet a program, Macron had none, I mean zero.
    Macron had all the media for him. There’s a photo of a newspaper store front stand during the election campaign displaying weekly and monthly magazines all having Macron on the front page, a dozen or more all with Macron, non-specialist, specialist, tabloids, women magazines (the two last overlap allright), ALL of them.
    The French presidential election and the election for the National Assembly that followed mark the success of the establishment in making elect void. It means that whoever they put before the people, they can make elected, they can even package a non-entity like Macron and make it a product they’ll sell to the masses. They made the French elect void. That they admitted by doing so that policy is decided elsewhere and not by the elected representatives of the people is irrelevant. Neither the representatives nor the people have any voice in the policy pursued in their name but they either fail to notice or don’t care.
    One of the most depressing aspects of Macron’s election is that it shows that the French deserve to be called “surrender monkeys”. It’s even worse actually because though there can be some interest in surrendering, the masses that voted for Macron voted against their own interest, they are the projected losers of globalisation and they know it. Another lesson of last year’s French elections is that people in the West trust the media and the elites more than they trust common sense and their own experience.
    There was absolutely no rational reason for people to vote for Macron, not even the mantra National Front = nazis, it’s bs and everybody knows it, the first resistance in France came from members of the remnants of small nobility, and yet they did, because the media told them so.
    I packed up and left France after Macron was elected. I didn’t want to live in a nation about to euthanase herself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @byrresheim
    Tell me where to go, please.

    My country lags behind your's by about half a decade, not much more.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. El Dato says:
    @Randal

    The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into an endless U.S. commitment to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its own defense.
     
    This is a pretty absurd position, frankly, given that the US regime's wars, and the manufactured confrontation of Russia, have been no more in the interests of the nations of Europe than they have been fought for the interests of the American people.

    Rather the wars waged by the US, and by its "comprador" elites running the governments of its European poodles, have been fought for the interests of Israel, of Saudi Arabia and of the various lobbies and elites able to "influence" US government policies and manufacture consent for wars in the countries of the US sphere, including the aforementioned European elites (exemplified by Emmanuel Macron and his exemplar Tony Blair).

    NATO is better understood as a mechanism to implement an implicit deal whereby the US pays to retain control of the military capabilities of the countries forming its European sphere.

    I've been hearing the absurd complaints from misguided American patriots (and neocon US liars) that Europe and the UK somehow "don't pay their way" for defence for nearly three decades now, since the day NATO should have been ended when its only plausible raison d'etre - the Soviet threat - disappeared. The truth is that any American patriot with a clear view of reality should be calling not for the European countries to pay more, but for NATO to be terminated and for their own country's policies of military intervention likewise to be terminated.

    Exactly this.

    And it’s made worse by Pat talking about a “U.S. commitment to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe”. Something out an alternate history, bizarro world, or a decaying mind.

    Pat also doesn’t know how “trade deficits” work

    Since the WTO was created in the mid-’90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits; and among the biggest beneficiaries — the EU.

    What exactly is the “beneficiary of a trade deficit”? Is it the side that imports more than it can pay for or the side which exports more than it can get paid for?

    And do US machinations to cut the EU off from Russian gas and provide expensive US ship-carried LPG in stead figure into this.

    In any case, any trade imbalance would swiftly vanish if debt were rated at its true value and exchange rates were allowed to balance out. Something that so-called “central banks” (more like wealth-transfer institutions with a license to truly, utterly kill) have been created for to keep from happening.

    It’s time to stop writing, Pat!

    Read More
    • Replies: @byrresheim
    Perhaps not to stop writing, but to sort out some cognitive dissonances.

    Being a patriot and having moral standards at the same time is hard, as Mr. Buchanan's writing shows in such instances.

    For my part I wished we cut down our dependence on exporting stuff to the worlds greatest debtor a bit, and soon. If not we might be in for a rude awakening.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Nationalism protects and excludes.

    Imperialism invades and includes.

    Tibet has no choice but to be included in China. West Bank has no choice but to be included in Empire of Zion.

    Imperialism = invasion = inclusion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. @Vojkan
    Macron is a creature of the Rotschild bank and Jacques Attali, a Jew notorious for saying that due to ever longer life expectancy, elderly non-productive people will eventually need to be euthanased, to relieve society of the burden they represent. Macron is a bankster. Banksters have no moral sense.
    Macron has married his 24 year older literature teacher, who has a son older than him. People who marry their mummy, sorry mummy fits her more than mommy, have serious psychological issues.
    Macron likes long complicated phrasings with a few pretentious words thrown here and there to impress those who love the music but don't listen to the lyrics. 90% of his sentences are devoid of any logic and make absolutely no sense, the 10% remaining are fallacies of which every tenth can qualify as sophistry. Yet, Macron is lauded for his rhetorical skills.
    The patriotic right in France had a program, flawed because it sucked up too much to the left, yet a program, Macron had none, I mean zero.
    Macron had all the media for him. There's a photo of a newspaper store front stand during the election campaign displaying weekly and monthly magazines all having Macron on the front page, a dozen or more all with Macron, non-specialist, specialist, tabloids, women magazines (the two last overlap allright), ALL of them.
    The French presidential election and the election for the National Assembly that followed mark the success of the establishment in making elect void. It means that whoever they put before the people, they can make elected, they can even package a non-entity like Macron and make it a product they'll sell to the masses. They made the French elect void. That they admitted by doing so that policy is decided elsewhere and not by the elected representatives of the people is irrelevant. Neither the representatives nor the people have any voice in the policy pursued in their name but they either fail to notice or don't care.
    One of the most depressing aspects of Macron's election is that it shows that the French deserve to be called "surrender monkeys". It's even worse actually because though there can be some interest in surrendering, the masses that voted for Macron voted against their own interest, they are the projected losers of globalisation and they know it. Another lesson of last year's French elections is that people in the West trust the media and the elites more than they trust common sense and their own experience.
    There was absolutely no rational reason for people to vote for Macron, not even the mantra National Front = nazis, it's bs and everybody knows it, the first resistance in France came from members of the remnants of small nobility, and yet they did, because the media told them so.
    I packed up and left France after Macron was elected. I didn't want to live in a nation about to euthanase herself.

    Tell me where to go, please.

    My country lags behind your’s by about half a decade, not much more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    The thing is I had where to go, the country I went to is the country I came from when I was a child, and as I was out of work and given my political opinions and my age, unlikely to find a job soon, my choice was facilitated. Yet, I wouldn't recommend Serbia to anyone. People are terribly impolite, dishonest, ungrateful, disrespectful of each other and the environment, but I have a house and a piece of land, I have my own fruit and vegetables, so I'm not that bad off. True, I can't buy the latest Nikon camera, but two I bought while in France work just fine, I can't buy the latest Roland digital piano, but the one I bought while in France works just fine too, and above all, there are some LGBT / feminist / Jewish folks but they are nowhere near the pain in the neck they are in France, and the few Arabs and blacks are just fine people, that makes it worth it. It's a shithole country allright, but at least you don't have to watch and listen to shithole fuckers 24/7.
    If you have enough savings to see coming for a while and an opportunity, any country with a Christian heritage is better for life than Western Europe.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    If you're young enough to learn a difficult foreign language, I suggest eastern Europe. They seem to be putting up a fight. But for lots of us, there's nowhere to run-we'll have to fight it out as best we can where we are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @El Dato
    Exactly this.

    And it's made worse by Pat talking about a "U.S. commitment to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe". Something out an alternate history, bizarro world, or a decaying mind.

    Pat also doesn't know how "trade deficits" work

    Since the WTO was created in the mid-’90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits; and among the biggest beneficiaries — the EU.

    What exactly is the "beneficiary of a trade deficit"? Is it the side that imports more than it can pay for or the side which exports more than it can get paid for?

    And do US machinations to cut the EU off from Russian gas and provide expensive US ship-carried LPG in stead figure into this.

    In any case, any trade imbalance would swiftly vanish if debt were rated at its true value and exchange rates were allowed to balance out. Something that so-called "central banks" (more like wealth-transfer institutions with a license to truly, utterly kill) have been created for to keep from happening.

    It's time to stop writing, Pat!

    Perhaps not to stop writing, but to sort out some cognitive dissonances.

    Being a patriot and having moral standards at the same time is hard, as Mr. Buchanan’s writing shows in such instances.

    For my part I wished we cut down our dependence on exporting stuff to the worlds greatest debtor a bit, and soon. If not we might be in for a rude awakening.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Vojkan says:
    @byrresheim
    Tell me where to go, please.

    My country lags behind your's by about half a decade, not much more.

    The thing is I had where to go, the country I went to is the country I came from when I was a child, and as I was out of work and given my political opinions and my age, unlikely to find a job soon, my choice was facilitated. Yet, I wouldn’t recommend Serbia to anyone. People are terribly impolite, dishonest, ungrateful, disrespectful of each other and the environment, but I have a house and a piece of land, I have my own fruit and vegetables, so I’m not that bad off. True, I can’t buy the latest Nikon camera, but two I bought while in France work just fine, I can’t buy the latest Roland digital piano, but the one I bought while in France works just fine too, and above all, there are some LGBT / feminist / Jewish folks but they are nowhere near the pain in the neck they are in France, and the few Arabs and blacks are just fine people, that makes it worth it. It’s a shithole country allright, but at least you don’t have to watch and listen to shithole fuckers 24/7.
    If you have enough savings to see coming for a while and an opportunity, any country with a Christian heritage is better for life than Western Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @byrresheim
    Tell me where to go, please.

    My country lags behind your's by about half a decade, not much more.

    If you’re young enough to learn a difficult foreign language, I suggest eastern Europe. They seem to be putting up a fight. But for lots of us, there’s nowhere to run-we’ll have to fight it out as best we can where we are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. El Dato says:

    More multi-lateralism for the Saudisrael Monstrously Swollen Twin Ticks is coming….

    From Pompeo lands in Saudi Arabia, immediately calls for new sanctions against Iran

    The secretary of state has commenced a three-day tour designed to rally American allies in the Middle East, as new sanctions against Iran loom and the nuclear deal with Tehran hangs in the balance.

    “We are urging nations around the world to sanction any individuals and entities associated with Iran’s missile program, and it has also been a big part of discussions with Europeans,” Brian Hook, a senior policy advisor on Pompeo’s team, told journalists shortly after landing in the Saudi capital of Riyadh on Saturday evening.

    Hook also accused Iran of supplying the rocket that Riyadh said was launched by the Houthis from Yemen into Saudi Arabia on Saturday, which killed one man.

    “Iran’s missiles prolong war and suffering in the Middle East, they threaten our security and economic interests and they especially threaten Saudi Arabia and Israel,”

    Some Sarah Connor is obligatory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Catiline says:
    @Randal

    The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into an endless U.S. commitment to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its own defense.
     
    This is a pretty absurd position, frankly, given that the US regime's wars, and the manufactured confrontation of Russia, have been no more in the interests of the nations of Europe than they have been fought for the interests of the American people.

    Rather the wars waged by the US, and by its "comprador" elites running the governments of its European poodles, have been fought for the interests of Israel, of Saudi Arabia and of the various lobbies and elites able to "influence" US government policies and manufacture consent for wars in the countries of the US sphere, including the aforementioned European elites (exemplified by Emmanuel Macron and his exemplar Tony Blair).

    NATO is better understood as a mechanism to implement an implicit deal whereby the US pays to retain control of the military capabilities of the countries forming its European sphere.

    I've been hearing the absurd complaints from misguided American patriots (and neocon US liars) that Europe and the UK somehow "don't pay their way" for defence for nearly three decades now, since the day NATO should have been ended when its only plausible raison d'etre - the Soviet threat - disappeared. The truth is that any American patriot with a clear view of reality should be calling not for the European countries to pay more, but for NATO to be terminated and for their own country's policies of military intervention likewise to be terminated.

    I would go further and advocate for Europe to occupy us instead.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Did Macron not learn at the Lycee Henri IV in Paris or the Ecole Nationale d’Administration how the Americans acquired all that land?

    General Washington, at whose Mount Vernon home Macron dined, was a nationalist who fought for six years to sever America’s ties to the nation under which he was born

    .

    I think Macron spoke the only language his audience in the Congress is capable of understanding.  This is America in the 21st century after all.   Did we expect to hear logic and something approaching reality?

    https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2018/04/29/united-states-of-america-a-guy-thing-from-the-gitgo/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Anon[417] • Disclaimer says:

    “Apart from the fifth column of the US nobody in Europe wants war with the Russians.”

    You must not be European. Check the BBC a few weeks ago. LOTS of establishment Brits want war against Russia and they want the US to fight it for them. The fifth column has tendrils everywhere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Pat’s turn of phrase, “that sinkhole of anti-Americanism, the General Assembly,” is itself a bit cranky and passé. It’s more like the US dug in their heels all alone as the GA (that is, the world) went about their business. Actually the US is a sinkhole of anti-everybody-else-in-the world-ism.

    Let’s take one decade, the one Blum looked at in Rogue State. The US voted Nyet 147 times in opposition to such international pariahs as Cuba and China and every other UN member nation. The US fought their petulant losing battle against everything: against results-oriented dialog (Resolution 41/91), a peace and security system (Resolution 41/92), peoples’ right to choose their system of government (Resolutions 38/25 and 36/19). They stood fast all alone against peace and cooperation in the South Atlantic (Resolution 41/11). The US voted alone against orderly succession of states (Resolution 37/11). They voted alone against protecting the ecology (Resolution 37/7). They voted alone against the scourge of cooperation (Resolution 40/445). Maybe ‘we’ were still touchy about Resolutions 3218 (XXIX), 3219 (XXIX), 3448 (XXX), 3452 (XXX), which pertained to torture (can’t imagine why.)

    But the UN should probably move to Geneva. That’s a civilized part of the world. The US government still can’t wrap its head around the Vienna Conventions, even though they codify rules of conduct that have been honored by civilized states since the Bronze Age. That means international diplomats are likely to get their legally-inviolable premises ransacked, just like they get their legally-inviolable communications ransacked. The US hasn’t done anything to earn the honor of hosting the world’s seat. Let a grown-up country do it. The UN should be in a cultural milieu where people can grasp rights and rule of law.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Wally says:
    @jacques sheete

    Macron belongs to a political class that sees open borders and free trade thickening and tightening the ties of dependency, and eventually creating a One Europe, whose destiny his crowd will forever control.
     
    What a pleasure to read those particular gems of truth in a fine article.

    PS: Thanks for mentioning the hideously aggressive nationalism of Israel.

    Macron said:

    “Together we will build a new, strong multilateralism that defends pluralism and democracy in the face of ill winds.”

    Yeah boy, a ‘European pluralistic democracy’ which arrests people for Free Speech & Thought Crimes because Jews instruct them to… who then support a JEWS ONLY ‘Israel’.

    Below is where free speech on the impossible ‘holocaust’ storyline is illegal, violators go to prison for Thought Crimes.
    An obvious admission that the storyline doesn’t stand up to scientific, logical, & rational scrutiny.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Incitatus says:
    @Rurik
    good point, thanks

    you know in Michigan there is a town called Frankenmuth, where they wear lederhosen and dirndls and sell stuff like Christmas ornaments or fudge from quaint little shops and such.

    http://www.marvherzoghotel.com/d/marvherzoghotel/media/Frankenmuth/Good_morning_america_chamber-081.jpg

    https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4454/37431915212_e4c71722a2_b.jpg

    But I was curious about the name of the town, which means 'courage of the Franks'

    I thought it interesting that a German town would be named after a Frankish tribe, but then it turns out that the Franks were actually a German tribe going back to the third century AD who invaded Gaul and supplanted the Gauls.

    Not sure why I reverted to the Gauls, perhaps it was a nostalgic whim.

    Interesting town, Rurik. Little Bavaria honors Frankish courage in Michigan? Hopefully with a unique beer?

    Curious about their ‘50th Anniversary of the Glockenspiel’ (photo). Is Wiki correct “Lutheran immigrants from Roßtal area of Franconia” c.1845?” Could Franconian (Bavarian) courage be the object of the ‘Franken’ namesake? Never mind. Any who risked all to settle in the unknown new world had courage.

    They founded “nearby villages of Frankenlust, Frankentrost, and Frankenhilf”? Wonder what the principle occupation is in Frankenlust? Realtor.com isn’t helpful. Whoever lives there seems to want to stay there.

    You’re correct on Frankish (non-Franconian variety) origins. Could be wrong, but Mérovingiens (Clovis I) and successor Carolingiens spoke a variation of ‘Old High German’ resembling Dutch. Charlemagne spoke it, as well as Latin and some Greek (not bad for the Dark Ages). Naturally both France and Germany claim him. Or did. Their enthusiasm diminishes as political-correctness comes to the fore.

    Makes one pine for Frankenlust.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Hopefully with a unique beer?
     
    It's really more a family type of atmosphere. But I do recall reading about how prohibition was a big problem for them, being as beer is as fundamental to their culture and way of life as it is in Germany. Also remember reading it was very difficult for them during WWII, for obvious reasons.

    Frankenlust.
     
    http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4100000/Young-Frankenstein-young-frankenstein-4189987-500-375.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    So, Zhirinovsky found second life as a comedian.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Ahistorical Sir: An objection:
    Modern Israel’s no “resurrection”.
    Zio-atheists cold
    Are no Hebrews of old,
    Nor so much as distorted reflection.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Rurik says:
    @Incitatus
    Interesting town, Rurik. Little Bavaria honors Frankish courage in Michigan? Hopefully with a unique beer?

    Curious about their ‘50th Anniversary of the Glockenspiel’ (photo). Is Wiki correct “Lutheran immigrants from Roßtal area of Franconia” c.1845?” Could Franconian (Bavarian) courage be the object of the ‘Franken’ namesake? Never mind. Any who risked all to settle in the unknown new world had courage.

    They founded “nearby villages of Frankenlust, Frankentrost, and Frankenhilf”? Wonder what the principle occupation is in Frankenlust? Realtor.com isn’t helpful. Whoever lives there seems to want to stay there.

    You’re correct on Frankish (non-Franconian variety) origins. Could be wrong, but Mérovingiens (Clovis I) and successor Carolingiens spoke a variation of ‘Old High German’ resembling Dutch. Charlemagne spoke it, as well as Latin and some Greek (not bad for the Dark Ages). Naturally both France and Germany claim him. Or did. Their enthusiasm diminishes as political-correctness comes to the fore.

    Makes one pine for Frankenlust.

    Hopefully with a unique beer?

    It’s really more a family type of atmosphere. But I do recall reading about how prohibition was a big problem for them, being as beer is as fundamental to their culture and way of life as it is in Germany. Also remember reading it was very difficult for them during WWII, for obvious reasons.

    Frankenlust.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    Great scene, great movie. Never tire of it. Strangelove’s on the same plateau.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Catiline says:
    @Randal

    Macron belongs to a political class that sees open borders and free trade thickening and tightening the ties of dependency, and eventually creating a One Europe, whose destiny his crowd will forever control.

    But if his idea of pluralism is multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural nations, with a multilateral EU overlord, he is describing a future that tens millions of Europeans believe means the death of the nations that give meaning to their lives.
     
    The political class in question is one that believes nations are obsolete artefacts of past limited travel and communications, doomed by modern technology to fade into a world of essentially arbitrary subdivisions, for administrative convenience, into regions run "democratically" and necessarily sharing their own decadent ideas of morality based upon radical leftist social liberalism. That's "the arc of history", and they believe that to stand against it is both futile and inherently evil.

    The problem is that on one level they are correct - nations (and the races upon which they are often most soundly based) are indeed artefacts of past limits on communication and travel. Whether meaningful national differences with geographical bases can be sustained long term in a world of effectively unlimited communications and almost free travel remains to be seen. With proper protection of sovereignty and borders, perhaps for a long time, at least.

    We should have a damned good try, anyway, because the alternative on offer from the radical social liberals/globalists can only end in global unified government under the rule of the likes of Bush, Clinton, Obama, Blair, Cameron, May , Merkel and Macron, and the end of human liberty and progress.

    PJB wants nationalism in order to control smaller polities and set them fighting against one another in the interests of Anglo=American hegemony.

    Read More
    • Troll: Rurik
    • Replies: @Mosley
    Can you back up that absurd assumption?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Randal says:

    PJB wants nationalism in order to control smaller polities and set them fighting against one another in the interests of Anglo=American hegemony.

    Works for me anyway, since I want nationalism in large part so my country can at least start to think about getting out of the leftist, interventionist “Anglo-American hegemony”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    If this mystical "Anglo-American hegemony" existed, then Anglo-Americans (not to mention Anglo-Brits) would be ascendant at least in their respective countries.

    Is there any evidence of this, or is the reality a raging 180º in the opposite direction?

    The queen hag and her spawn may be on magazine covers, but England (and the ZUSA) are foundering under a decades-long assault upon their founding citizens like no other place on earth, other than the Arabs of Palestine, or perhaps the Swedes of Sweden.

    Pointing to George Bush or Trump as evidence of Anglo-American hegemony- is not just disingenuous, it's utter horse shit.
    , @Catiline
    If you want out from under A-A hegemony nationalism is the wrong way to go about it. PJB knows this, that's why he advocates it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Mosley says:
    @Catiline
    PJB wants nationalism in order to control smaller polities and set them fighting against one another in the interests of Anglo=American hegemony.

    Can you back up that absurd assumption?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Catiline
    What's absurd about it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Rurik says:
    @Randal

    PJB wants nationalism in order to control smaller polities and set them fighting against one another in the interests of Anglo=American hegemony.
     
    Works for me anyway, since I want nationalism in large part so my country can at least start to think about getting out of the leftist, interventionist "Anglo-American hegemony".

    If this mystical “Anglo-American hegemony” existed, then Anglo-Americans (not to mention Anglo-Brits) would be ascendant at least in their respective countries.

    Is there any evidence of this, or is the reality a raging 180º in the opposite direction?

    The queen hag and her spawn may be on magazine covers, but England (and the ZUSA) are foundering under a decades-long assault upon their founding citizens like no other place on earth, other than the Arabs of Palestine, or perhaps the Swedes of Sweden.

    Pointing to George Bush or Trump as evidence of Anglo-American hegemony- is not just disingenuous, it’s utter horse shit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Well I suppose on one level it's merely a matter of the use of terminology. The only "Anglo-American hegemony" I see is the one represented by the US and UK establishments' shared SJW/globalist culture, that effectively controls discourse and politics throughout the US sphere, actively suppresses dissent, and coerces it into a socially liberal anti-nationalist globalism for the benefit of the political left and the moneyed business elites (but I repeat myself).

    Catiline and others might mean something else by the term, but if I'm going to use it (and it's not one I'd choose because it's too imprecise imo) that's what I'd mean by it.


    If this mystical “Anglo-American hegemony” existed, then Anglo-Americans (not to mention Anglo-Brits) would be ascendant at least in their respective countries.
     
    Well the real tragedy of our situation is that to a great extent Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits still are ascendant in our countries. It's just that the elite Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits choose to use their ascendancy to collaborate with and enable other interests against their own people.

    By the time our nations fully wake up to this, it will genuinely be too late to fight back other than on even, or disadvantaged, terms.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Randal says:
    @Rurik
    If this mystical "Anglo-American hegemony" existed, then Anglo-Americans (not to mention Anglo-Brits) would be ascendant at least in their respective countries.

    Is there any evidence of this, or is the reality a raging 180º in the opposite direction?

    The queen hag and her spawn may be on magazine covers, but England (and the ZUSA) are foundering under a decades-long assault upon their founding citizens like no other place on earth, other than the Arabs of Palestine, or perhaps the Swedes of Sweden.

    Pointing to George Bush or Trump as evidence of Anglo-American hegemony- is not just disingenuous, it's utter horse shit.

    Well I suppose on one level it’s merely a matter of the use of terminology. The only “Anglo-American hegemony” I see is the one represented by the US and UK establishments’ shared SJW/globalist culture, that effectively controls discourse and politics throughout the US sphere, actively suppresses dissent, and coerces it into a socially liberal anti-nationalist globalism for the benefit of the political left and the moneyed business elites (but I repeat myself).

    Catiline and others might mean something else by the term, but if I’m going to use it (and it’s not one I’d choose because it’s too imprecise imo) that’s what I’d mean by it.

    If this mystical “Anglo-American hegemony” existed, then Anglo-Americans (not to mention Anglo-Brits) would be ascendant at least in their respective countries.

    Well the real tragedy of our situation is that to a great extent Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits still are ascendant in our countries. It’s just that the elite Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits choose to use their ascendancy to collaborate with and enable other interests against their own people.

    By the time our nations fully wake up to this, it will genuinely be too late to fight back other than on even, or disadvantaged, terms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Well the real tragedy of our situation is that to a great extent Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits still are ascendant in our countries. It’s just that the elite Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits choose to use their ascendancy to collaborate with and enable other interests against their own people.
     
    Because class trumps ethnic and racial loyalties. Ordinary Anglo-Brits are being royally screwed. But upper-class Anglo-Brits are doing very nicely thank you. And they don't give a damn about the ordinary Anglo-Brits because the class hatred of rich Anglo-Brits for poor Anglo-Brits is is far more virulent than any racial hatreds.
    , @Rurik

    it’s too imprecise imo)
     
    iow it means the opposite of what it suggests. I gotcha

    Well the real tragedy of our situation is that to a great extent Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits still are ascendant in our countries. It’s just that the elite Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits choose to use their ascendancy to collaborate with and enable other interests against their own people.
     
    a tiny few are actually "ascendant". Most are alarmed at a bleak and terrifying (Rotherham writ large) future.

    The ones who're ascendant, like Theresa May, et al, are serving the Fiend. And by servicing the Fiend in abased, treacherous betrayal of their respective nations and people, they're personally exalted to grandiose heights. As their people are colonized and raped and marginalized and demonized as "racists" and ethnically cleansed out of their ancient lands.

    So to call that 'hegemony', is ludicrously preposterous. Just because Tony Blair and George Bush and the Clintons get fantastically wealthy, is only more proof positive that by serving the Fiend at the direct expense of your people, it pays off- in some ways. But if you look at pictures of these people today, Tony Blair or Hillary, for instance.. serving the Fiend comes at a price. Including the hatred of your people.

    https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/john-mccain-joe-arpaio-pardon-trump.jpg

    everybody I talk to is eager for this turd to get flushed, even Republicans in good standing with the GOP

    https://www.alux.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/tony-blair.jpg

    perhaps the most hated man in England

    http://theduran.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/hillary-meltdown.jpg

    Yes, John and Tony and Hillary are Anglos, and they've been ascendant, but they've only accomplished that by betraying their respective people, while in service to the Fiend.

    http://americanlookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/george-soros.jpg

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Incitatus says:
    @Rurik

    Hopefully with a unique beer?
     
    It's really more a family type of atmosphere. But I do recall reading about how prohibition was a big problem for them, being as beer is as fundamental to their culture and way of life as it is in Germany. Also remember reading it was very difficult for them during WWII, for obvious reasons.

    Frankenlust.
     
    http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4100000/Young-Frankenstein-young-frankenstein-4189987-500-375.jpg

    Great scene, great movie. Never tire of it. Strangelove’s on the same plateau.

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

    PJB wants nationalism in order to control smaller polities and set them fighting against one another in the interests of Anglo=American hegemony.
     
    Works for me anyway, since I want nationalism in large part so my country can at least start to think about getting out of the leftist, interventionist "Anglo-American hegemony".

    If you want out from under A-A hegemony nationalism is the wrong way to go about it. PJB knows this, that’s why he advocates it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    If you want out from under A-A hegemony nationalism is the wrong way to go about it. PJB knows this, that’s why he advocates it.
     
    Well you might think that, but I can see perfectly clearly that one of the main things that really gets up the noses of the members of the "Anglo-American hegemony" - people like Tony Blair, David Cameron, and Theresa May in my country, Obama, Clinton, George Bush II and senior establishment Republicans in the US - and that they really go all out to suppress, is nationalism. "Racism" as well, of course.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Catiline says:
    @Mosley
    Can you back up that absurd assumption?

    What’s absurd about it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. anon[321] • Disclaimer says:

    Macron worked as an investment banker for the Rothschild bank, he is a puppet of the Jew World Order. By helping him win this election, the Chosen now have total control of France and the EU. It was no coincidence that he was the one who so quickly came up with “credible evidence” of the chemical attack in Douma and Assad’s involvement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal
    Well I suppose on one level it's merely a matter of the use of terminology. The only "Anglo-American hegemony" I see is the one represented by the US and UK establishments' shared SJW/globalist culture, that effectively controls discourse and politics throughout the US sphere, actively suppresses dissent, and coerces it into a socially liberal anti-nationalist globalism for the benefit of the political left and the moneyed business elites (but I repeat myself).

    Catiline and others might mean something else by the term, but if I'm going to use it (and it's not one I'd choose because it's too imprecise imo) that's what I'd mean by it.


    If this mystical “Anglo-American hegemony” existed, then Anglo-Americans (not to mention Anglo-Brits) would be ascendant at least in their respective countries.
     
    Well the real tragedy of our situation is that to a great extent Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits still are ascendant in our countries. It's just that the elite Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits choose to use their ascendancy to collaborate with and enable other interests against their own people.

    By the time our nations fully wake up to this, it will genuinely be too late to fight back other than on even, or disadvantaged, terms.

    Well the real tragedy of our situation is that to a great extent Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits still are ascendant in our countries. It’s just that the elite Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits choose to use their ascendancy to collaborate with and enable other interests against their own people.

    Because class trumps ethnic and racial loyalties. Ordinary Anglo-Brits are being royally screwed. But upper-class Anglo-Brits are doing very nicely thank you. And they don’t give a damn about the ordinary Anglo-Brits because the class hatred of rich Anglo-Brits for poor Anglo-Brits is is far more virulent than any racial hatreds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Because class trumps ethnic and racial loyalties
     
    No, this, in the categoric form given, is Marxist tripe.

    "Class" (personal interests based upon economic standing) clearly influences views and practices, but it is by no means the only thing that does so. The problem we face is mostly that national and racial loyalty has been engineered out of the economic and political elites (in large part by those very same Marxists) over the past couple of generations, so that it no longer has the balancing effect it once had.

    Enoch Powell would be the exemplar here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @byrresheim

    The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into an endless U.S. commitment to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its own defense.
     
    Surely you jest.

    Apart from the fifth column of the US nobody in Europe wants war with the Russians.

    To tell you the truth: as long as you Americans don't supply them with literally everything in times of war – from shoe laces to fighter bombers including can openers – to the tune of 20 % of their armament production – we can actually handle them, thank you very much.

    The nice thing: they know it, that's why they are not overly keen on a replay without the US on their side.

    Thus, NATO is utterly needless if not to keep the Europeans toeing to the line.

    In a war where the USA and China don’t get involved, I’ll take Russia over all of the EU (including formerly-Great formerly-Britain) in a heartbeat.

    And now there’s a new reason to question whether European peoples will be able to defend themselves reliably with “their” militaries: a rapidly growing Muslim fifth column in their countries and, soon enough, in their armed forces.

    Sweden, France, England, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Belgium will be physically and culturally Muslim-dominated and then actually Muslim-majority, in fairly short order, maybe Austria too — I’ll predict that happens before a similar thing happens to Russia (if it ever does happen to Russia).

    The level of daily violence, racial hatred, religious fanaticism, and cultural Balkanization that most of Europe will be suffering, is not conducive to an effective national defense, as it marks the accelerating dissipation of those ethnocultural nations in their entirety.

    In short, with all Russia’s serious demographic and cultural problems, they can readily destroy Europe unless the US intervenes. But it looks like the Europeans are handling that just fine on their own.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "In short, with all Russia’s serious demographic and cultural problems, they can readily destroy Europe unless the US intervenes."

    No. Russia may get its first strike in with your doomsday scenario, but at the end of the day, the major Russian cities would be reduced to rubble. No one wins. Everyone gets destroyed.

    "Sweden, France, England, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Belgium will be physically and culturally Muslim-dominated."

    Perhaps. Then again, maybe not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Randal says:
    @dfordoom

    Well the real tragedy of our situation is that to a great extent Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits still are ascendant in our countries. It’s just that the elite Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits choose to use their ascendancy to collaborate with and enable other interests against their own people.
     
    Because class trumps ethnic and racial loyalties. Ordinary Anglo-Brits are being royally screwed. But upper-class Anglo-Brits are doing very nicely thank you. And they don't give a damn about the ordinary Anglo-Brits because the class hatred of rich Anglo-Brits for poor Anglo-Brits is is far more virulent than any racial hatreds.

    Because class trumps ethnic and racial loyalties

    No, this, in the categoric form given, is Marxist tripe.

    “Class” (personal interests based upon economic standing) clearly influences views and practices, but it is by no means the only thing that does so. The problem we face is mostly that national and racial loyalty has been engineered out of the economic and political elites (in large part by those very same Marxists) over the past couple of generations, so that it no longer has the balancing effect it once had.

    Enoch Powell would be the exemplar here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The problem we face is mostly that national and racial loyalty has been engineered out of the economic and political elites
     
    Agreed. So that for the elites, class trumps ethnic and racial loyalties. For the elites, class loyalty is all they have. They have no identity at all save for their class identity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Randal says:
    @Catiline
    If you want out from under A-A hegemony nationalism is the wrong way to go about it. PJB knows this, that's why he advocates it.

    If you want out from under A-A hegemony nationalism is the wrong way to go about it. PJB knows this, that’s why he advocates it.

    Well you might think that, but I can see perfectly clearly that one of the main things that really gets up the noses of the members of the “Anglo-American hegemony” – people like Tony Blair, David Cameron, and Theresa May in my country, Obama, Clinton, George Bush II and senior establishment Republicans in the US – and that they really go all out to suppress, is nationalism. “Racism” as well, of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    but I can see perfectly clearly that one of the main things that really gets up the noses of the members of the “Anglo-American hegemony” – people like Tony Blair, David Cameron, and Theresa May in my country, Obama, Clinton, George Bush II and senior establishment Republicans in the US – and that they really go all out to suppress, is nationalism.
     
    More or less. Although it's important to note that while these Anglo-Brit elites are not nationalists they're not actually internationalists either. The objective is not internationalism. The objective is American hegemony. The whole world run from Washington. A global American empire.

    That's why they're hostile towards the UN. The UN is too internationalist for their liking.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Rurik says:
    @Randal
    Well I suppose on one level it's merely a matter of the use of terminology. The only "Anglo-American hegemony" I see is the one represented by the US and UK establishments' shared SJW/globalist culture, that effectively controls discourse and politics throughout the US sphere, actively suppresses dissent, and coerces it into a socially liberal anti-nationalist globalism for the benefit of the political left and the moneyed business elites (but I repeat myself).

    Catiline and others might mean something else by the term, but if I'm going to use it (and it's not one I'd choose because it's too imprecise imo) that's what I'd mean by it.


    If this mystical “Anglo-American hegemony” existed, then Anglo-Americans (not to mention Anglo-Brits) would be ascendant at least in their respective countries.
     
    Well the real tragedy of our situation is that to a great extent Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits still are ascendant in our countries. It's just that the elite Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits choose to use their ascendancy to collaborate with and enable other interests against their own people.

    By the time our nations fully wake up to this, it will genuinely be too late to fight back other than on even, or disadvantaged, terms.

    it’s too imprecise imo)

    iow it means the opposite of what it suggests. I gotcha

    Well the real tragedy of our situation is that to a great extent Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits still are ascendant in our countries. It’s just that the elite Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits choose to use their ascendancy to collaborate with and enable other interests against their own people.

    a tiny few are actually “ascendant”. Most are alarmed at a bleak and terrifying (Rotherham writ large) future.

    The ones who’re ascendant, like Theresa May, et al, are serving the Fiend. And by servicing the Fiend in abased, treacherous betrayal of their respective nations and people, they’re personally exalted to grandiose heights. As their people are colonized and raped and marginalized and demonized as “racists” and ethnically cleansed out of their ancient lands.

    So to call that ‘hegemony’, is ludicrously preposterous. Just because Tony Blair and George Bush and the Clintons get fantastically wealthy, is only more proof positive that by serving the Fiend at the direct expense of your people, it pays off- in some ways. But if you look at pictures of these people today, Tony Blair or Hillary, for instance.. serving the Fiend comes at a price. Including the hatred of your people.

    everybody I talk to is eager for this turd to get flushed, even Republicans in good standing with the GOP

    perhaps the most hated man in England

    Yes, John and Tony and Hillary are Anglos, and they’ve been ascendant, but they’ve only accomplished that by betraying their respective people, while in service to the Fiend.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom


    Well the real tragedy of our situation is that to a great extent Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits still are ascendant in our countries. It’s just that the elite Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits choose to use their ascendancy to collaborate with and enable other interests against their own people.
     
    a tiny few are actually “ascendant”. Most are alarmed at a bleak and terrifying (Rotherham writ large) future.
     
    Most Anglo-Brits are not the least bit alarmed about their future. Especially the Brits. They're so docile and well-trained. They have no idea that their society is heading for a cliff. They have their social media, and the telly, and the BBC to tell them how to think, they have their junk culture, they have shiny consumer goods. They don't think about the future. They're incapable of thinking about it.

    perhaps the most hated man in England
     
    Is Tony Blair actually hated? He's hated by alt-right types but do ordinary Britons hate him? If ordinary Britons hate people like Blair so much how come they keep voting for them? David Cameron and Theresa May are basically Blairites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    Because class trumps ethnic and racial loyalties
     
    No, this, in the categoric form given, is Marxist tripe.

    "Class" (personal interests based upon economic standing) clearly influences views and practices, but it is by no means the only thing that does so. The problem we face is mostly that national and racial loyalty has been engineered out of the economic and political elites (in large part by those very same Marxists) over the past couple of generations, so that it no longer has the balancing effect it once had.

    Enoch Powell would be the exemplar here.

    The problem we face is mostly that national and racial loyalty has been engineered out of the economic and political elites

    Agreed. So that for the elites, class trumps ethnic and racial loyalties. For the elites, class loyalty is all they have. They have no identity at all save for their class identity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Randal

    If you want out from under A-A hegemony nationalism is the wrong way to go about it. PJB knows this, that’s why he advocates it.
     
    Well you might think that, but I can see perfectly clearly that one of the main things that really gets up the noses of the members of the "Anglo-American hegemony" - people like Tony Blair, David Cameron, and Theresa May in my country, Obama, Clinton, George Bush II and senior establishment Republicans in the US - and that they really go all out to suppress, is nationalism. "Racism" as well, of course.

    but I can see perfectly clearly that one of the main things that really gets up the noses of the members of the “Anglo-American hegemony” – people like Tony Blair, David Cameron, and Theresa May in my country, Obama, Clinton, George Bush II and senior establishment Republicans in the US – and that they really go all out to suppress, is nationalism.

    More or less. Although it’s important to note that while these Anglo-Brit elites are not nationalists they’re not actually internationalists either. The objective is not internationalism. The objective is American hegemony. The whole world run from Washington. A global American empire.

    That’s why they’re hostile towards the UN. The UN is too internationalist for their liking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rurik

    it’s too imprecise imo)
     
    iow it means the opposite of what it suggests. I gotcha

    Well the real tragedy of our situation is that to a great extent Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits still are ascendant in our countries. It’s just that the elite Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits choose to use their ascendancy to collaborate with and enable other interests against their own people.
     
    a tiny few are actually "ascendant". Most are alarmed at a bleak and terrifying (Rotherham writ large) future.

    The ones who're ascendant, like Theresa May, et al, are serving the Fiend. And by servicing the Fiend in abased, treacherous betrayal of their respective nations and people, they're personally exalted to grandiose heights. As their people are colonized and raped and marginalized and demonized as "racists" and ethnically cleansed out of their ancient lands.

    So to call that 'hegemony', is ludicrously preposterous. Just because Tony Blair and George Bush and the Clintons get fantastically wealthy, is only more proof positive that by serving the Fiend at the direct expense of your people, it pays off- in some ways. But if you look at pictures of these people today, Tony Blair or Hillary, for instance.. serving the Fiend comes at a price. Including the hatred of your people.

    https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/john-mccain-joe-arpaio-pardon-trump.jpg

    everybody I talk to is eager for this turd to get flushed, even Republicans in good standing with the GOP

    https://www.alux.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/tony-blair.jpg

    perhaps the most hated man in England

    http://theduran.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/hillary-meltdown.jpg

    Yes, John and Tony and Hillary are Anglos, and they've been ascendant, but they've only accomplished that by betraying their respective people, while in service to the Fiend.

    http://americanlookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/george-soros.jpg

    Well the real tragedy of our situation is that to a great extent Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits still are ascendant in our countries. It’s just that the elite Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits choose to use their ascendancy to collaborate with and enable other interests against their own people.

    a tiny few are actually “ascendant”. Most are alarmed at a bleak and terrifying (Rotherham writ large) future.

    Most Anglo-Brits are not the least bit alarmed about their future. Especially the Brits. They’re so docile and well-trained. They have no idea that their society is heading for a cliff. They have their social media, and the telly, and the BBC to tell them how to think, they have their junk culture, they have shiny consumer goods. They don’t think about the future. They’re incapable of thinking about it.

    perhaps the most hated man in England

    Is Tony Blair actually hated? He’s hated by alt-right types but do ordinary Britons hate him? If ordinary Britons hate people like Blair so much how come they keep voting for them? David Cameron and Theresa May are basically Blairites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    They have their social media, and the telly, and the BBC to tell them how to think, they have their junk culture, they have shiny consumer goods. They don’t think about the future. They’re incapable of thinking about it.
     
    I disagree, up to a point.

    Every one of their elite masters, from every fount of the Fiend's lies; the 'telly, the social media, the newspapers and so forth, scolded them that a vote for Brexit was a vote for catastrophe. Just like us Deplorables were all admonished that a Trump presidency would be the end of the world.

    So too were the Brits likewise lectured and admonished that a vote for Brexit (out of alarm over immigration) would send them all to the poorhouse.

    Is Tony Blair actually hated?
     
    this from a 30 second Internet search:

    Since leaving office, Blair’s sleazy globe-trotting business dealings, most notably with the authoritarian President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, have only compounded his unpopularity. Blair remains largely hated by the electorate; indeed, recent polling suggests that more than half of voters believe Blair’s actions on Iraq are literally unforgivable, placing him beyond the moral pale of humanity itself.
     
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/11/the-most-hated-man-in-britain-thinks-he-can-save-the-country-tony-blair-brexit-labour/

    but it does mention that he still has his fans, as does John McCain. Not everyone hates John McCain. Lindsey Graham doesn't hate him. Neither do the neocons, to whom he sold his soul. As did Blair.

    But for the Brexit voters, just as with Les Deplorables, these men are as rotten as it gets. They'll willingly lie their nations into disastrous wars that will result in the mass-murder of hundreds of thousands or more, while destroying country after country and plunging millions into despair, while they facilitate the destruction of their own people's lives with massive immigration.

    There's a reason I call it the Fiend, and that's because it hates humanity with a demonic, insatiable lechery. It needs to face-fist-fuck mankind and then set its brutalized victim on fire for good measure, and of course for the pleasure it gets from watching its victims writhe in agony.

    How else can you describe what it did to Germany - and still does? How else can you describe what it did to Libya and is trying to do to Syria?

    What other than a fiend would send armies of invaders into working class England to rape their school girls wholesale? And punish anyone who complained.

    That is a fiend sir, so enamored of misery and suffering that it literally gets off on it.

    And increasingly, the British and American people are getting tired of our "ascendancy' and our 'hegemony'. We'd like to be a whole lot less ascendant and hegemonic, considering what those things mean to the average Brit (humiliating replacement by hostile others, and expected to fund the process while being excoriated as 'racists' if we're not enthusiastic enough about our genocide)

    a little less 'ascendancy' please

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/20070322oliver.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Rurik says:
    @dfordoom


    Well the real tragedy of our situation is that to a great extent Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits still are ascendant in our countries. It’s just that the elite Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Brits choose to use their ascendancy to collaborate with and enable other interests against their own people.
     
    a tiny few are actually “ascendant”. Most are alarmed at a bleak and terrifying (Rotherham writ large) future.
     
    Most Anglo-Brits are not the least bit alarmed about their future. Especially the Brits. They're so docile and well-trained. They have no idea that their society is heading for a cliff. They have their social media, and the telly, and the BBC to tell them how to think, they have their junk culture, they have shiny consumer goods. They don't think about the future. They're incapable of thinking about it.

    perhaps the most hated man in England
     
    Is Tony Blair actually hated? He's hated by alt-right types but do ordinary Britons hate him? If ordinary Britons hate people like Blair so much how come they keep voting for them? David Cameron and Theresa May are basically Blairites.

    They have their social media, and the telly, and the BBC to tell them how to think, they have their junk culture, they have shiny consumer goods. They don’t think about the future. They’re incapable of thinking about it.

    I disagree, up to a point.

    Every one of their elite masters, from every fount of the Fiend’s lies; the ‘telly, the social media, the newspapers and so forth, scolded them that a vote for Brexit was a vote for catastrophe. Just like us Deplorables were all admonished that a Trump presidency would be the end of the world.

    So too were the Brits likewise lectured and admonished that a vote for Brexit (out of alarm over immigration) would send them all to the poorhouse.

    Is Tony Blair actually hated?

    this from a 30 second Internet search:

    Since leaving office, Blair’s sleazy globe-trotting business dealings, most notably with the authoritarian President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, have only compounded his unpopularity. Blair remains largely hated by the electorate; indeed, recent polling suggests that more than half of voters believe Blair’s actions on Iraq are literally unforgivable, placing him beyond the moral pale of humanity itself.

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/11/the-most-hated-man-in-britain-thinks-he-can-save-the-country-tony-blair-brexit-labour/

    but it does mention that he still has his fans, as does John McCain. Not everyone hates John McCain. Lindsey Graham doesn’t hate him. Neither do the neocons, to whom he sold his soul. As did Blair.

    But for the Brexit voters, just as with Les Deplorables, these men are as rotten as it gets. They’ll willingly lie their nations into disastrous wars that will result in the mass-murder of hundreds of thousands or more, while destroying country after country and plunging millions into despair, while they facilitate the destruction of their own people’s lives with massive immigration.

    There’s a reason I call it the Fiend, and that’s because it hates humanity with a demonic, insatiable lechery. It needs to face-fist-fuck mankind and then set its brutalized victim on fire for good measure, and of course for the pleasure it gets from watching its victims writhe in agony.

    How else can you describe what it did to Germany – and still does? How else can you describe what it did to Libya and is trying to do to Syria?

    What other than a fiend would send armies of invaders into working class England to rape their school girls wholesale? And punish anyone who complained.

    That is a fiend sir, so enamored of misery and suffering that it literally gets off on it.

    And increasingly, the British and American people are getting tired of our “ascendancy’ and our ‘hegemony’. We’d like to be a whole lot less ascendant and hegemonic, considering what those things mean to the average Brit (humiliating replacement by hostile others, and expected to fund the process while being excoriated as ‘racists’ if we’re not enthusiastic enough about our genocide)

    a little less ‘ascendancy’ please

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

    Buchanan confuses nationalism with imperialism. Empire is the enemy of the nation, and that applies to the home nation of the empire as well as the satellite nations. Nations are based on a moral compact between the governors and the governed. In the days of the European kingdoms that compact was founded on a sense of shared history, values, language, and faith. In the liberal era the compact is codified in constitutional rights of citizenship and terms of participation of citizens in governing. Rulers of empires have dominion over nations with which they have no such moral compact. Once rule without the moral compact is established, the stage is set for the compact with the citizens of the home nation to be eroded. The interests of empire become decoupled with the interests of nation, although the line between the two can be indistinct. Imperial wars are gambles of imperial power, with the costs disproportionately borne by the home nation and the benefits disproportionately accruing to the imperial interests in a completely amoral fashion. Neoliberalism and open borders are expressions of imperial power governing with no moral bond to the nation, eroding the rights of citizenship.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Buchanan confuses nationalism with imperialism.
     
    As do most American so-called conservatives.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Thirdeye
    Buchanan confuses nationalism with imperialism. Empire is the enemy of the nation, and that applies to the home nation of the empire as well as the satellite nations. Nations are based on a moral compact between the governors and the governed. In the days of the European kingdoms that compact was founded on a sense of shared history, values, language, and faith. In the liberal era the compact is codified in constitutional rights of citizenship and terms of participation of citizens in governing. Rulers of empires have dominion over nations with which they have no such moral compact. Once rule without the moral compact is established, the stage is set for the compact with the citizens of the home nation to be eroded. The interests of empire become decoupled with the interests of nation, although the line between the two can be indistinct. Imperial wars are gambles of imperial power, with the costs disproportionately borne by the home nation and the benefits disproportionately accruing to the imperial interests in a completely amoral fashion. Neoliberalism and open borders are expressions of imperial power governing with no moral bond to the nation, eroding the rights of citizenship.

    Buchanan confuses nationalism with imperialism.

    As do most American so-called conservatives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Corvinus says:
    @RadicalCenter
    In a war where the USA and China don’t get involved, I’ll take Russia over all of the EU (including formerly-Great formerly-Britain) in a heartbeat.

    And now there’s a new reason to question whether European peoples will be able to defend themselves reliably with “their” militaries: a rapidly growing Muslim fifth column in their countries and, soon enough, in their armed forces.

    Sweden, France, England, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Belgium will be physically and culturally Muslim-dominated and then actually Muslim-majority, in fairly short order, maybe Austria too — I’ll predict that happens before a similar thing happens to Russia (if it ever does happen to Russia).

    The level of daily violence, racial hatred, religious fanaticism, and cultural Balkanization that most of Europe will be suffering, is not conducive to an effective national defense, as it marks the accelerating dissipation of those ethnocultural nations in their entirety.

    In short, with all Russia’s serious demographic and cultural problems, they can readily destroy Europe unless the US intervenes. But it looks like the Europeans are handling that just fine on their own.

    “In short, with all Russia’s serious demographic and cultural problems, they can readily destroy Europe unless the US intervenes.”

    No. Russia may get its first strike in with your doomsday scenario, but at the end of the day, the major Russian cities would be reduced to rubble. No one wins. Everyone gets destroyed.

    “Sweden, France, England, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Belgium will be physically and culturally Muslim-dominated.”

    Perhaps. Then again, maybe not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?