The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
The Mind of Mr. Putin
🔊 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

“Do you realize now what you have done?”

So Vladimir Putin in his U.N. address summarized his indictment of a U.S. foreign policy that has produced a series of disasters in the Middle East that we did not need the Russian leader to describe for us.

Fourteen years after we invaded Afghanistan, Afghan troops are once again fighting Taliban forces for control of Kunduz. Only 10,000 U.S. troops still in that ravaged country prevent the Taliban’s triumphal return to power.

A dozen years after George W. Bush invaded Iraq, ISIS occupies its second city, Mosul, controls its largest province, Anbar, and holds Anbar’s capital, Ramadi, as Baghdad turns away from us — to Tehran.

The cost to Iraqis of their “liberation”? A hundred thousand dead, half a million widows and fatherless children, millions gone from the country and, still, unending war.

How has Libya fared since we “liberated” that land? A failed state, it is torn apart by a civil war between an Islamist “Libya Dawn” in Tripoli and a Tobruk regime backed by Egypt’s dictator.

Then there is Yemen. Since March, when Houthi rebels chased a Saudi sock puppet from power, Riyadh, backed by U.S. ordinance and intel, has been bombing that poorest of nations in the Arab world.

Five thousand are dead and 25,000 wounded since March. And as the 25 million Yemeni depend on imports for food, which have been largely cut off, what is happening is described by one U.N. official as a “humanitarian catastrophe.”

“Yemen after five months looks like Syria after five years,” said the international head of the Red Cross on his return.

On Monday, the wedding party of a Houthi fighter was struck by air-launched missiles with 130 guests dead. Did we help to produce that?

What does Putin see as the ideological root of these disasters?

“After the end of the Cold War, a single center of domination emerged in the world, and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think they were strong and exceptional, they knew better.”

Then, adopting policies “based on self-conceit and belief in one’s exceptionality and impunity,” this “single center of domination,” the United States, began to export “so-called democratic” revolutions.

How did it all turn out? Says Putin:

“An aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions. … Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster. Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life.”

Is Putin wrong in his depiction of what happened to the Middle East after we plunged in? Or does his summary of what American interventions have wrought echo the warnings made against them for years by American dissenters?

Putin concept of “state sovereignty” is this: “We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the right one.”

The Soviet Union tried that way, said Putin, and failed. Now the Americans are trying the same thing, and they will reach the same end.

Unlike most U.N. speeches, Putin’s merits study. For he not only identifies the U.S. mindset that helped to produce the new world disorder, he identifies a primary cause of the emerging second Cold War.

ORDER IT NOW

To Putin, the West’s exploitation of its Cold War victory to move NATO onto Russia’s doorstep caused the visceral Russian recoil. The U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine that overthrew the elected pro-Russian government led straight to the violent reaction in the pro-Russian Donbas.

What Putin seems to be saying to us is this:

If America’s elites continue to assert their right to intervene in the internal affairs of nations, to make them conform to a U.S. ideal of what is a good society and legitimate government, then we are headed for endless conflict. And, one day, this will inevitably result in war, as more and more nations resist America’s moral imperialism.

Nations have a right to be themselves, Putin is saying.

They have the right to reflect in their institutions their own histories, beliefs, values and traditions, even if that results in what Americans regard as illiberal democracies or authoritarian capitalism or even Muslim theocracies.

There was a time, not so long ago, when Americans had no problem with this, when Americans accepted a diversity of regimes abroad. Indeed, a belief in nonintervention abroad was once the very cornerstone of American foreign policy.

Wednesday and Thursday, Putin’s forces in Syria bombed the camps of U.S.-backed rebels seeking to overthrow Assad. Putin is sending a signal: Russia is willing to ride the escalator up to a collision with the United States to prevent us and our Sunni Arab and Turkish allies from dumping over Assad, which could bring ISIS to power in Damascus.

Perhaps it is time to climb down off our ideological high horse and start respecting the vital interests of other sovereign nations, even as we protect and defend our own.

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

Copyright 2015 Creators.com

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Middle East, Russia 
Hide 44 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Realist says:

    “So Vladimir Putin in his U.N. address summarized his indictment of a U.S. foreign policy that has produced a series of disasters in the Middle East that we did not need the Russian leader to describe for us.”

    Most Americans do need to hear it, but it will be for naught. As stupidity rules here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pbuchanan/the-mind-of-mr-putin/#comment-1167673
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    “There was a time, not so long ago, when Americans had no problem with this, when Americans accepted a diversity of regimes abroad. Indeed, a belief in nonintervention abroad was once the very cornerstone of American foreign policy.”

    This wasn’t totally true as there had been American foreign policy rhetoric about spreading its values of Christianity and democracy and human rights and all that stuff.
    After all, that’s how US got involved in the Spanish-American War. US beat the Spanish Empire real fast, but then it got mired in a nasty war in the Philippines. US had its vision of how Filos should be, but the Filos had their own ideas. They didn’t want Americans meddling with their national tradition of putting on orange suits and dancing to Michael Jackson’s BEAT IT.

    But it’s true enough that Americans were less intrusive in the past than they are today. Part of the reason was that the American hegemony is relatively recent. Up to WWII, the world was divided among various mega-empires. It as after WWII that British, French, and Japanese empires all fell apart. So, was the US the only empire? No, there was the USSR, made all the more formidable with the fall of China to communism and then wars in Korea and Vietnam. Eventually, Russia and China would split and go their separate ways, but US saw both as communist threats for some time.
    In this climate, US had to WOO nations to its side. It couldn’t just go around kicking ass cuz Soviets would support any nation pissed with the US.

    But with the fall of the USSR, all the small weak nations had no protector against US power. It was USA all the way. Even so, most Americans never cared much about foreign policy, and most American ethnic groups have generally ignored world events. Black Americans don’t know much about black Africa and don’t much care. And most ethnic groups either lack power or have lost their sense of connectedness to the old world nations of their own origina. Most German-Americans don’t care about Germany and don’t even speak the language. And Asian-Americans don’t have the power to push the Asian agenda. And despite all the hysteria about Sharia law, Muslim/Arab power is piddly in the US.

    The only two groups that make any difference in US foreign policy are Jews and Wasps(and maybe homos). Though Wasp power has been in decline and since British Empire is no more, there is less reason for Wasps to get so riled up about foreign policy. But then, maybe the decline of wasp power in domestic affairs is the reason why so many look to foreign policy to feel a sense of power. We sense this especially among GOP wasps or waspies(non-wasps who’ve been waspized) like John McCain and John Bolton. In the US, they are servile to Jews and must apologize for their ‘white privilege’ to Negroes and Hispanics.
    It is in foreign policy where they can act tough and big and put on the cowboy act. Bush could destroy Iraq but show no remorse but grovel for what wasn’t even his fault in New Orleans after Katrina.
    McCain, a pooty cat before Jews, roars like a lion at the Middle East, China, and Russia. We can see this dynamic among ordinary white Americans too. In the US, they must swallow their pride and always feel sorry cuz they’re blamed for ‘white privilege’ and ‘racism’. But if they join the military, they can go to the Middle East and blow it up real good(like the clown soldiers in Godard’s LES CARABINIERS). It’s like Kyle took out his white male angst out on Iraqis in THE AMERICAN SNIPER. He made believe that he was ‘defending’ and ‘protecting’ the US from ‘terrorists’ in Iraq, completely blind to the fact that Jews and homos were turning the white race into a bunch of maggoty cucks. Brits are much the same. As Jewish-controlled PC dominates the UK, British whites cannot even feel racial and national pride in their own homeland. So, the only tough pride left for Brits is by throwing their weight around in foreign affairs. It’s like the cuck Cameron says Assad must go. Wow, what a tough guy. He hasn’t the balls to defend his own white British folks, but he acts tough and says he’s veddy veddy angry with Assad. Of course, Wasp foreign policy is essentially controlled by Jews(and homos), but it makes wasps feel tough and special cuz they can growl at nations like Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and etc. They can bark like dogs while pretending they are masters of the world.

    Another reason why Wasps feel special rapport with foreign policy is because we are living in an Anglophone world and Anglo-legal world. Though Jews control UK and US, the world order that Jews inherited or stole from Wasps was created by Anglo/American might, vision, imagination, diligence, and ambition. Anglos created it, and Jews took over it. To be sure, it was created with considerable Jewish input as Jews had been big in finance and trade in the Anglo World. Anyway, with English as the world language and with American/English culture(at least with stuff like Harry Potter books) sweeping the world, Anglos still feel that they have the right to steer world events(or help Jews steer it). Niall Ferguson is something of a cuck and a representative of a fallen power, but to the extent that so much of the world was created by Anglo-power and still operates according to Anglo legacy, he feels his people are still in the game, and in a way, they are cuz UK is still a big player in finance, fashion, and trade.
    The world of ideas is still concentrated in the Anglo world, English language movies dominate the world, English language songs are the world standard. English language universities in US and UK dominate academia.

    [MORE]

    Of course, as Jews are the real masters of the Anglo/American world, wasps must play second-fiddle, but that still means Wasps are only below Jews in world power. Especially because Brits once used to rule the world and because Anglo-Americans had been so spectacular in their rise to power, there is still a residue of ambition in the Anglo soul, and this can lead to overly aggressive stances of people like McCain, Bolton the dolton, Hillary, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, good ole Ollie North the clown, and etc.
    GOP especially tries to score points via foreign policy cuz it is morally on the defensive on the domestic front as the core faiths of the US are MLK worship, Jew worship, homo worship, and feminist bitching. Since Negroes, Jews, Homos, and women — as top holy victim groups — are prevalent in the Democratic Party(whereas GOP is dominated by ‘evil racist’ white electorate), GOP feels morally inferior at home. So, it tries to score moral points by rattling the saber at ‘evil foreign’ tyrants or supporting Israel by pretending that it is facing yet another ‘existential’ threat or holocaust by a whole bunch of ‘new hitlers’ that spring up faster than ‘new Dylans’ in the 1960/7os:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=_dEddefiYx0C&pg=PA334&lpg=PA334&dq=book+of+rock+list+100+new+dylans&source=bl&ots=VRPpisrru5&sig=9fNcVhhfnF0DBxDA-3yrbcBrw7M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAWoVChMIxpKZwIWjyAIVxVk-Ch3x-AWw#v=onepage&q=book%20of%20rock%20list%20100%20new%20dylans&f=false

    This is why the end of the Cold War was more damaging to the GOP as it could no longer go crying ‘wolf’, whereas Democrats can just cry wolf by pointing to ‘racist conservative whites’. For a while, 9/11 was a blessing for GOP righteousness, but Bush II messed it up real good by letting Jews exploit it for their own nefarious purposes.

    Even without foreign policy, Dems have the upperhand cuz Libs control the Narrative and made it out to be ‘good whites’ allied with holy victims against evil ‘racist’ ‘bad whites’, aka conservatives. Unless the GOP changes the Narrative at home, it will keep seeking justification by yammering about foreign policy, which however is controlled by Jews. That is why Ann Coulter was so angry about all those GOP cucks at the debate going on about Israel.
    Coulter is a nut and a liar, but she is right to say that the GOP war and Conservative renewal must be about white Americans taking their last stand IN America than directing all their energy at foreign issues that does no one any good but to the Jews who control globalism.
    But Ann cannot succeed at this unless she adopts a truly honest race-ist view of humanity. Unless she addresses the problems of higher Jewish IQ and stronger Negro muscle, her blows will keep missing the target. She swings hard at Mexicans, but Mexers are just numbers. They are not the real power. How ridiculous are the Mestizo Mexers? They demographically dominate Mexico but are still ruled by what is more or less a white minority elite down there.

    The real power of America is Jewish Power.

    Indeed, there is no single generic American Power or American Interest.
    American Interest and Power must always be understood in terms of hyphenation. We need the Specifics of Power when we talk about America.

    In the beginning, there was Anglo-American Power. While America had Negroes, French, Jews, Spanish, and others in small numbers, American power was Anglo-American Power. And as Anglos got the headstart in America, German-Americans and Dutch-Americans assimilated into Anglo-America, and they also served Anglo-American interests. Later, the Irish-Catholics arrived, and their vision and interest diverged from that of Anglo-American Protestants. In America, Protestant anxiety about Catholic was often synonymous with Anglo trepidation about the Irish. Though there were common interests among Anglo-Americans and Irish-Americans, they didn’t see eye to eye on everything. Anglo-Americans felt closer to Britain(despite the War of Independence) and Irish-Americans felt closer to Ireland. And as Irish power began to grow, Anglo-American foreign policy and Irish-American foreign policy sometimes clashed. Lots of Irish-Americans would later support the IRA whereas Anglo-American elites generally sided with British policy.

    Now, foreign policy could differ even among the same ethnic group along ideological lines. For example, some Anglo-Americans were ‘isolatonist realists’ while others were ‘interventionist idealists’. But ideologies come and go whereas ethnic identification tend to remain, at least among some groups with a powerful sense of history and grievance.
    As US became more diverse, its foreign policy also became more complicated. As different groups in America had different ethnic sympathies, it was difficult to lay down a single American foreign policy to satisfy all. During WWI, German-Americans weren’t happy with rising hostility toward Germany by the Wilson administration that represented Liberal Anglo-American foreign policy. And during WWII, white Americans wondered if Japanese-Americans could be trusted. And prior to Pearl Harbor and Germany’s declaration of war on the US, plenty of German-Americans were pro-German and lobbied for a US policy that was pro-German. In some cases, even race-conscious Anglo-Americans began to sympathize more with Germans in both US and UK cuz they felt that Anglo-Americanism was becoming too universal and losing its sense of blood and soil. Charles Lindbergh was one. The Duke of something in UK was another. And Italian-Americans were looking out for Italy. According to the film critic Andrew Sarris, his parents were both pro-German before Greece was invaded by Germany.
    After WWII during the early yrs of Cold War, Anglo-Americans wondered if Jewish-Americans could be trusted as so many Jews appeared to be commie agents or Zionist spies.

    Naturally, if there were a war between nation A and nation B with US as a neutral observer, A-Americans will likely side with nation A while B-Americans will likely side with nation B. And A-Americans would push a foreign policy favoring nation A while B-Americans would push a foreign policy favoring nation B. Both proposals would be American foreign policy but A-American foreign policy proposal would be markedly different from the B-American foreign policy.

    Prior to Pearl Harbor, it was difficult for the US government to take sides since German-Americans sided with Germany and Jewish-Americans sided with enemies of Germany. Italian-Americans would likely have sided with Italy unless they were leftist and hated Mussolini. Though Japanese-Americans and Chinese-Americans were hardly powerful, Japanese-Americans sympathized with Japan and Chinese-Americans sympathized with China. If any of these groups could control American foreign policy, they would have steered it to favor the interest of their homeland in the Old World. As it happened, the rulers of America were Anglo-Americans, and they sympathized most with the UK. But as US had a large German population that sympathized with Germany and as Americans didn’t want their sons to die in a possible war, Americans were isolationist.
    But when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on America, America’s hand was forced to take the war to Japan and Germany. American foreign policy became simplified because it now had a an enemy that declared war on it. Even German-Americans who sympathized with Germany were now compelled to get on the bandwagon.
    But suppose there had been no Pearl Harbor or Germany’s declaration of war on America. Then, it would have been a tougher call for US foreign policy to take sides. As US hadn’t been attacked, it would have had no reason to fight any nation. Also, as US had many German-Americans as well as Anglo-Americans, who was to say Anglo-American-favored foreign policy should take precedence over German-American-favored foreign policy if indeed US foreign policy should reflect the interests of all Americans?

    Anyway, as America became ever more diverse and as non-Anglo-Americans gained greater power after WWII, American foreign policy became more troubled yet. Of course, the group whose power grew the most was the Jews. And Jewish vision of the world was different from those of various non-Jews.
    Because everyone is supposed to be a ‘good American’ in America and work for the good of America in general, everyone ideally needs to repress his or her narrow ethnic interest for the common American interest. Anglo-Americans who’d long dominated US foreign policy pretended to be for the common good of all Americans, but in fact, they’d used foreign policy to favor their own racial/ethnic interest. After all, their policy didn’t much care for black-American interests or Mexican-American interests. And Anglo-American foreign policy didn’t much care about Irish-American interest, Italian-American interest, Russian-American interest, or Polish-American interest. But because the idea of ‘America’ was supposed to be bigger than any ethnicity, Anglo-Americans always framed and justified their foreign policy as having been devised for the common good of all.

    And others groups did the same. As non-Anglo-Americans gained greater power through electoral numbers, lobbying groups, and politicians, they too came to have a say in American foreign policy.
    But of course, a Greek-American had different ideas than an Italian-American or a Turkish-American. When it came to non-Greek issues, a Greek-American could be impartial. But when it came to foreign policy issues pertaining Greece, he was likely to favor Greece over other nations. (And non-Anglos were less impartial due to their stronger tribalism. FDR, to his credit, didn’t go too far in favoring UK over other nations, and he didn’t care for Churchill’s racially dismissive remarks about non-whites. But such ‘fairness’ would become the Achilles’ heel of Anglos as they began to play more and more fair when other groups, especially Jews, had no intention of playing fair.) But of course, whether it was a Greek-American or Turkish-American in government, he would never admit that his proposed policy was designed to favor his kinfolk. He would try to frame in terms of common good of all Americans or some idealized issue about human rights or international law. Use abstractions to obfuscate what are essentially tribal passions and agendas — just like the kingdoms of old justified their tribal aggressions in the name of doing God’s work for the higher good of all.

    So, one thing for sure, there is no such thing as generic American foreign policy. There are only hyphenated-American foreign policies. However much such may be obfuscated by abstractions about ‘human rights’ and ‘international justice’, there is a tribalism hidden somewhere. It’s like that Polish-American guy Zbig Brzezinski. Being a Polack, he obviously had his homeland(then under Russian rule) in mind when he advised Jimmy Carter. Though the general US policy was anti-Soviet, Zbig was more passionate in his anti-Soviet stance since Poles were under Russian tyranny. So, Zbig worked especially hard to undermine the USSR by dragging it into Afghanistan. If Carter’s sec of state had been someone whose nation wasn’t oppressed by communism, the policy might have been less hostile. Anyway, Zbig couldn’t admit that his Polishness was the reason for his decisions. It would seem petty, like when dufus George W. Bush said he invaded Iraq cuz Hussein once threatened to kill his daddy. It’s like what they say in THE GODFATHER. It’s business, not personal. Of course, it’s all personal, but one must make it seem like it’s only business. So, even though Zbig was personally angry with the Soviets cuz his Polackland was under commie rule, he claimed that his proposed policy was really about the national good regardless of ethnicity.

    To understand US foreign policy, we need to be specificist about the power. There must be nearly 200 ethnic groups as America took in immigrants from nations all over. There are Guatamalan-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Polish-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Turkish-Americans, etc. There are also Native American or Indian-Amerians, Eskimo-Americans, Hawaiian-Americans, etc. But do most of these groups have power over US foreign policy? Most groups might press on their local politician for some tribal favors, but it’s mostly piddly-dink stuff.
    Now, Cuban-Americans have considerable power in Florida, and as it is a swing state, Cuban-Americans even has sizable impact on US foreign policy, especially in regards to Cuba but to communism in general as Cuban-Americans were mostly anti-communist due to Castro.
    And Irish-Americans played a significant role in the politics of Ireland. But generally speaking, these kinds of ethno-biased foreign policies were limited in scope as most people came from one part of the world.
    After all, Burmese-Americans only care about Burma and nothing else. And Armenian-Americans only care about Armenia. And Greek-Americans care about Greece and Irish-Americans care about Ireland.

    But Jews were different. Their foreign policy was bound to have global implications/repercussions cuz Jews got great power in the Middle East, South Africa, EU, US, Russia, other Anglophone nations, and even in parts of Latin America.
    The most powerful group in America are the Jews. And they control US foreign policy. Though Jews revile Wasp elites of the past for having favored European immigration over the non-European, they insist on a US foreign policy that favors Jewish interests and Israel(with which US is said to have a special relation)over all others must prevail.
    If US is indeed a nation of people from all over the world, why should its foreign policy favor one ethnic group over all others? Why should it favor Jewish-Zionist interests over Palestinian-American interests?
    When it comes to Greece and Turkey and Cyprus, US foreign policy plays it neutral and ‘fair’. Greek-Americans lobby for Greeks in Cyprus while Turkish-Americans lobby for Turks in Cyprus, but US foreign policy favors neither. Now, if Greek-Americans were the ruling elites of America, things might be different. Greeks might convince Americans that America has a special relationship with Greece(a nation that deserves special recognition for its gifts to mankind with stuff like philosophy and democracy) and steer US might to drive Turks out of Cyprus and let Greeks have all of it. Or if Turkish-Americans were the ruling elites of America, they might use US foreign policy for Turkish-centric agendas.
    But then, it wouldn’t sound right for Greek-Americans or Turkish-Americans to say US foreign policy should ONLY be about their ethnic interest. They will try to abstract their ethnic agenda into ‘universalist’ pleas centered around ‘human rights’, ‘stopping genocide’, ‘upholding international law’, or some such. To convince all Americans(most of whom are not Greek) to go along, the Greek elites would have to invoke something other than narrow Greek interests.

    And this is where we are with the Jews. On the one hand, with their power of media and Holocaust cult, Jews have morally browbeaten all Americans into accepting that Israel must be given special consideration and that US foreign policy must generally favor Israel. BUT, Jews can’t always justify their Jewish-dominant foreign policy on Jewish interests alone as more and more Americans(most of whom are not Jewish) will feel like dupes and cucks and suckers for an ethnic minority elite that is using other peoples for their narrow agendas.
    So, when Jews planned the war on Iraq, they invoked human rights, evil Hussein as new hitler, spreading democracy, and getting rid of WMD. (If Neocons really believed Hussein had WMD, why would they have invaded? Wouldn’t Hussein have used them when back into a corner? Wouldn’t many 1000s or even 10,000s of Americans been killed as a result? If neocons were fully convinced that Hussein really had WMDs, they would have thought twice about the invasion. The fact that they were eager to take out Hussein suggests they didn’t believe in the WMD jazz.) Of course, the main reason for the Iraq Invasion was War for Israel and Zionist domination of the Middle East. But Jews couldn’t say it and instead used abstractions to fool Americans that it was for the good of all Americans. So, dummies like Kyle in THE AMERICAN SNIPER went to Iraq to fight ‘muzzies’ out of conviction that he was protecting his wife and kids from terrorists in Iraq cuz… “if we don’t fight them over there, we will fight them over here.”

    All this anti-Iran foreign policy has also been driven by Jewish-American ethnic interest. Same goes for anti-Russian foreign policy. Jews are pissed at Russia cuz they almost came to own all of it. Putin offers lots of wealth and privilege for Jews in Russia, but that isn’t good enough for Jews who feel like the new Hitlers. It’s like it wasn’t good enough for Hitler to rule Germany or dominate most of Europe. He just had to have Russia as well.
    But Jews will never admit that their ethnic interest was at the center of all these foreign policy maneuvers. They will cook up an endless stream of bogus nonsense about human rights and international law. But if Jewish-Americans care so much about human rights, why is there no discussion of how Israel was founded via ethnic cleansing? Or how Israel continues to oppress Palestinians? Or how Israel ignores international laws and has 300 nukes and still holds onto Golan Heights? Where is Victoria Nuland on that?

    Seriously, if there were no Jews in the US, would current US foreign policy be what it is? Would US really be at loggerheads with Russia that has only limited regional ambitions and wants to do business with Europe? Would US have such bad relations with Middle East nations except Saudi Arabia and other ultra-reactionary Gulf states whose human rights violations are conveniently overlooked for alliance sake? As long as those Gulf lowlifes aid and abet the Jewish agenda in the Middle East, Jewish-American foreign policy is okay with them. Gulf State Sunnis will do anything to crush the Shias and secular Arab modernizers.

    Anyway, there are so many ethnic groups in America, but when it comes to foreign policy, the only ones that really matter are Jews and Wasps as their sidekicks.
    So, if we want to be clear-headed about American power, we need to hyphenate American foreign policy. Don’t call it American foreign policy but Jewish-American foreign policy or Zio-US foreign policy. If we say ‘American foreign policy’, it implies that it has the approval of all Americans and that it serves all Americans equally.
    But who in his right mind thinks that Palestinian-Americans believe that the Jewish-American foreign policy is fair and just to Palestinians? Who in his right mind thinks that a Syrian-Americans believe that Jewish-American foreign policy is fair and just to Syrians?

    What is called ‘American’ is really about ‘which ethnic group has the power and the means to shape and force its vision of American Interests on all other Americans of different ethnicity?’ For much of American history, it was Anglo-Americans who had such power. And with Wasps, their domination was somewhat justified as they laid the foundations of America and did most in the crucial early stages to envision and build America. Anglo-American laid the foundations of what it means to be American. It was the model to assimilate to.

    But Jews became the new ruling elites and decided to change Americanism so that everyone had to assimilate to the Jewish vision of America as a ‘nation of immigrants’, ‘nation with special relation with Israel’, ‘a nation of homo marriage’, ‘nation of eternal white guilt’, and etc. And not only Anglo-Americans but all Americans of so many different ethnicities are told they must also ‘assimilate’ to the Jewish vision of Americanism as the true Americanism.

    But why should the support of Zionist oppression of Palestinians be the central theme of Americanism or American foreign policy for non-Jews, especially non-whites? Also, if Jews insist on the importance of ‘white guilt’ as the cornerstone of new Americanism, then wouldn’t non-white Americans be angry with the sight of white Jews oppressing swarthy non-white Palestinians?

    This could be why some Jews are now saying that Jews must no longer be considered as ‘white’. If Jews are not white, then the Jews who are oppressing the Palestinians are not white. Since it is about non-white Jews oppressing non-white Palestinians, SJW types will care less since Western Progressivism is mostly about vilifying white people and mostly ignores non-whites oppressing non-whites. I mean SJW never cared about black-on-black oppression in Africa. They only cared about Apartheid even though white rule in South Africa was mild compared to black-on-black massacres.

    Anyway, we need to focus on the ethnicity of power. We must stop speaking of American power in general terms. Power in America is now very ethno-specific. Jews rule and control American foreign policy. It must be called Jewish-American foreign policy. And since Homos are the mini-me’s of Jews, there is also the homo-American foreign policy, like the ‘gay war on Russia’ cuz Kremlin won’t allow homo victory parades on Red Square.

    Unless we employ such specificist lingo, we will be under the impression that American foreign policy represents us all. It most certainly doesn’t. It serves the ethnic interests of the ruling elites who use abstractions of idealism and high-minded principles to obfuscate what are really their narrow ethnic interests.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rifleman
    Nobody will read it Sissy Factory. Save it for your own site Andrea. Here you should get to the point.

    You are a gay male in denial with aspergers. Neither condition are the fault of the Jews.
    , @AndrewR
    The Asian agenda? Lmao. FOH
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I think you are completely wrong in attributing anything like the same power and influence to Jews, especially Israel first Jews, in the UK as you attribute to them in the US. I would be interested in your sources and evidence but you have to surmount the difficulty that there are not nearly as many Jews in the UK as in the US, that they have no Christian fundamentalist backing and that UK politics cannot be manipulated by money as US politics can. Have you ever heard of a major party candidate in the UK being selected or deselected with any reference to Jewish influence?

    Obviously Israel's survival as a Jewish state benefits from the splitting up of the ME into many small, preferably mutually antagonistic polities. Tackling the perceived threats in rational order of priority they can leave aside any immediate concern about Saudi Arabia as long as the royal family is not overthrown, and Egypt, maybe even if there is another revolution, but Iran and its allies have to rank high as potential threats without overlooking the problem of the Islamic State/ISIS/ISIL/DAESH consolidating and becoming too powerful. And while they think they have to worry about Iran it is hard for them to concentrate on the Turkey problem as it has emerged under Erdogan.

    , @rastignac
    "English language songs are the world standard" - true when it comes to kitsch. Eat shit, man. German poets and composers (Schubert, Schuman, Mahler, etc.) have written songs lovelier than your Peter Paul and Mary or whatever the Beatles were named.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Paddy’s lies never end, do they?

    The US has murdered over two million Iraqi’s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "After all, that’s how US got involved in the Spanish-American War. US beat the Spanish Empire real fast, but then it got mired in a nasty war in the Philippines. US had its vision of how Filos should be, but the Filos had their own ideas. "

    If you've read Buchanan's book "A Republic, Not an Empire," you know he identifies the Span-Am War as the point when America "ate the poisoned fruit of Empire," and began wading into the wider world on a mission to make it look like itself. And from a foreign policy point of view, it's been all downhill since. So much for Washington's admonishment to keep clear of entangling alliances. These days we link ourselves to every penny ante group out there that turns our head.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Common sense is not so common.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    One reason why Jewish-American foreign policy is more intrusive, interventionist, and subversive around the world is because US is now a minority ruled nation, US belongs to Jewish-Homo cabal or the Jomo Cabal.

    As their ideal is elite minoritarian, they seek to undermine all majoritarian nations around the world. They push their agenda in the name of ‘tolerance’ but it is a neo-Leninist sneak-attack to eventually pave the way for supremacist minority-elite power.
    Jews have used their NGOs in Russia to promote the homo agenda in order to make Russians kowtow to the homo elites who serve as proxies of Jewish power. Jews use homo power as the anesthetics to weaken and prepare the ‘patient’ for the Jewish Shylockian scalpel.

    When US was ruled by majority-gentile whites, Americans could understand and identify with the idea that other nations should be ruled by their majority populations.
    Wilson is much reviled but his ideal was every nation should be ruled by its majority-kind.
    And FDR sympathized with Indians against the British imperialist elites.

    But now, as US is ruled by the Jomo Cabal, it seeks to undermine majoritarianism everywhere.
    So, the Jomos tell Europeans to open the gates and let tons of invaders in.
    Jomos say Europeans should cheer for black athletes. Jomos say white women should use their wombs to grow black babies. Jomos say homos must be celebrated by straights. Jomos say all politicians must love Israel more than their own kind. Jomos say every nation should favor its immigrants or invaders over the native population.

    This Jomo foreign policy is spread not only by diplomacy and military aggression but by soft power of pop culture and academic influence. Hollywood movies promote homo agenda everywhere.

    It pretends to be about promoting tolerance but the real agenda is to make the majority favor the minority.
    Germans, cucked and brainwashed, think their own ethnic interestsin their homeland should take the backseat to ‘refugee’ interests,
    Jomos are rubbing their hands with glee.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Interesting comment, but I don't agree with your odda to the evil jew Rosenfeld (Roosevelt) and the vicious evil jew puppet Wilson, with them yids taked power, money and the goverment
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Rifleman says:
    @Priss Factor
    "There was a time, not so long ago, when Americans had no problem with this, when Americans accepted a diversity of regimes abroad. Indeed, a belief in nonintervention abroad was once the very cornerstone of American foreign policy."

    This wasn't totally true as there had been American foreign policy rhetoric about spreading its values of Christianity and democracy and human rights and all that stuff.
    After all, that's how US got involved in the Spanish-American War. US beat the Spanish Empire real fast, but then it got mired in a nasty war in the Philippines. US had its vision of how Filos should be, but the Filos had their own ideas. They didn't want Americans meddling with their national tradition of putting on orange suits and dancing to Michael Jackson's BEAT IT.

    But it's true enough that Americans were less intrusive in the past than they are today. Part of the reason was that the American hegemony is relatively recent. Up to WWII, the world was divided among various mega-empires. It as after WWII that British, French, and Japanese empires all fell apart. So, was the US the only empire? No, there was the USSR, made all the more formidable with the fall of China to communism and then wars in Korea and Vietnam. Eventually, Russia and China would split and go their separate ways, but US saw both as communist threats for some time.
    In this climate, US had to WOO nations to its side. It couldn't just go around kicking ass cuz Soviets would support any nation pissed with the US.

    But with the fall of the USSR, all the small weak nations had no protector against US power. It was USA all the way. Even so, most Americans never cared much about foreign policy, and most American ethnic groups have generally ignored world events. Black Americans don't know much about black Africa and don't much care. And most ethnic groups either lack power or have lost their sense of connectedness to the old world nations of their own origina. Most German-Americans don't care about Germany and don't even speak the language. And Asian-Americans don't have the power to push the Asian agenda. And despite all the hysteria about Sharia law, Muslim/Arab power is piddly in the US.

    The only two groups that make any difference in US foreign policy are Jews and Wasps(and maybe homos). Though Wasp power has been in decline and since British Empire is no more, there is less reason for Wasps to get so riled up about foreign policy. But then, maybe the decline of wasp power in domestic affairs is the reason why so many look to foreign policy to feel a sense of power. We sense this especially among GOP wasps or waspies(non-wasps who've been waspized) like John McCain and John Bolton. In the US, they are servile to Jews and must apologize for their 'white privilege' to Negroes and Hispanics.
    It is in foreign policy where they can act tough and big and put on the cowboy act. Bush could destroy Iraq but show no remorse but grovel for what wasn't even his fault in New Orleans after Katrina.
    McCain, a pooty cat before Jews, roars like a lion at the Middle East, China, and Russia. We can see this dynamic among ordinary white Americans too. In the US, they must swallow their pride and always feel sorry cuz they're blamed for 'white privilege' and 'racism'. But if they join the military, they can go to the Middle East and blow it up real good(like the clown soldiers in Godard's LES CARABINIERS). It's like Kyle took out his white male angst out on Iraqis in THE AMERICAN SNIPER. He made believe that he was 'defending' and 'protecting' the US from 'terrorists' in Iraq, completely blind to the fact that Jews and homos were turning the white race into a bunch of maggoty cucks. Brits are much the same. As Jewish-controlled PC dominates the UK, British whites cannot even feel racial and national pride in their own homeland. So, the only tough pride left for Brits is by throwing their weight around in foreign affairs. It's like the cuck Cameron says Assad must go. Wow, what a tough guy. He hasn't the balls to defend his own white British folks, but he acts tough and says he's veddy veddy angry with Assad. Of course, Wasp foreign policy is essentially controlled by Jews(and homos), but it makes wasps feel tough and special cuz they can growl at nations like Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and etc. They can bark like dogs while pretending they are masters of the world.

    Another reason why Wasps feel special rapport with foreign policy is because we are living in an Anglophone world and Anglo-legal world. Though Jews control UK and US, the world order that Jews inherited or stole from Wasps was created by Anglo/American might, vision, imagination, diligence, and ambition. Anglos created it, and Jews took over it. To be sure, it was created with considerable Jewish input as Jews had been big in finance and trade in the Anglo World. Anyway, with English as the world language and with American/English culture(at least with stuff like Harry Potter books) sweeping the world, Anglos still feel that they have the right to steer world events(or help Jews steer it). Niall Ferguson is something of a cuck and a representative of a fallen power, but to the extent that so much of the world was created by Anglo-power and still operates according to Anglo legacy, he feels his people are still in the game, and in a way, they are cuz UK is still a big player in finance, fashion, and trade.
    The world of ideas is still concentrated in the Anglo world, English language movies dominate the world, English language songs are the world standard. English language universities in US and UK dominate academia.

    Of course, as Jews are the real masters of the Anglo/American world, wasps must play second-fiddle, but that still means Wasps are only below Jews in world power. Especially because Brits once used to rule the world and because Anglo-Americans had been so spectacular in their rise to power, there is still a residue of ambition in the Anglo soul, and this can lead to overly aggressive stances of people like McCain, Bolton the dolton, Hillary, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, good ole Ollie North the clown, and etc.
    GOP especially tries to score points via foreign policy cuz it is morally on the defensive on the domestic front as the core faiths of the US are MLK worship, Jew worship, homo worship, and feminist bitching. Since Negroes, Jews, Homos, and women --- as top holy victim groups --- are prevalent in the Democratic Party(whereas GOP is dominated by 'evil racist' white electorate), GOP feels morally inferior at home. So, it tries to score moral points by rattling the saber at 'evil foreign' tyrants or supporting Israel by pretending that it is facing yet another 'existential' threat or holocaust by a whole bunch of 'new hitlers' that spring up faster than 'new Dylans' in the 1960/7os:
    https://books.google.com/books?id=_dEddefiYx0C&pg=PA334&lpg=PA334&dq=book+of+rock+list+100+new+dylans&source=bl&ots=VRPpisrru5&sig=9fNcVhhfnF0DBxDA-3yrbcBrw7M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAWoVChMIxpKZwIWjyAIVxVk-Ch3x-AWw#v=onepage&q=book%20of%20rock%20list%20100%20new%20dylans&f=false

    This is why the end of the Cold War was more damaging to the GOP as it could no longer go crying 'wolf', whereas Democrats can just cry wolf by pointing to 'racist conservative whites'. For a while, 9/11 was a blessing for GOP righteousness, but Bush II messed it up real good by letting Jews exploit it for their own nefarious purposes.

    Even without foreign policy, Dems have the upperhand cuz Libs control the Narrative and made it out to be 'good whites' allied with holy victims against evil 'racist' 'bad whites', aka conservatives. Unless the GOP changes the Narrative at home, it will keep seeking justification by yammering about foreign policy, which however is controlled by Jews. That is why Ann Coulter was so angry about all those GOP cucks at the debate going on about Israel.
    Coulter is a nut and a liar, but she is right to say that the GOP war and Conservative renewal must be about white Americans taking their last stand IN America than directing all their energy at foreign issues that does no one any good but to the Jews who control globalism.
    But Ann cannot succeed at this unless she adopts a truly honest race-ist view of humanity. Unless she addresses the problems of higher Jewish IQ and stronger Negro muscle, her blows will keep missing the target. She swings hard at Mexicans, but Mexers are just numbers. They are not the real power. How ridiculous are the Mestizo Mexers? They demographically dominate Mexico but are still ruled by what is more or less a white minority elite down there.

    The real power of America is Jewish Power.

    Indeed, there is no single generic American Power or American Interest.
    American Interest and Power must always be understood in terms of hyphenation. We need the Specifics of Power when we talk about America.

    In the beginning, there was Anglo-American Power. While America had Negroes, French, Jews, Spanish, and others in small numbers, American power was Anglo-American Power. And as Anglos got the headstart in America, German-Americans and Dutch-Americans assimilated into Anglo-America, and they also served Anglo-American interests. Later, the Irish-Catholics arrived, and their vision and interest diverged from that of Anglo-American Protestants. In America, Protestant anxiety about Catholic was often synonymous with Anglo trepidation about the Irish. Though there were common interests among Anglo-Americans and Irish-Americans, they didn't see eye to eye on everything. Anglo-Americans felt closer to Britain(despite the War of Independence) and Irish-Americans felt closer to Ireland. And as Irish power began to grow, Anglo-American foreign policy and Irish-American foreign policy sometimes clashed. Lots of Irish-Americans would later support the IRA whereas Anglo-American elites generally sided with British policy.

    Now, foreign policy could differ even among the same ethnic group along ideological lines. For example, some Anglo-Americans were 'isolatonist realists' while others were 'interventionist idealists'. But ideologies come and go whereas ethnic identification tend to remain, at least among some groups with a powerful sense of history and grievance.
    As US became more diverse, its foreign policy also became more complicated. As different groups in America had different ethnic sympathies, it was difficult to lay down a single American foreign policy to satisfy all. During WWI, German-Americans weren't happy with rising hostility toward Germany by the Wilson administration that represented Liberal Anglo-American foreign policy. And during WWII, white Americans wondered if Japanese-Americans could be trusted. And prior to Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the US, plenty of German-Americans were pro-German and lobbied for a US policy that was pro-German. In some cases, even race-conscious Anglo-Americans began to sympathize more with Germans in both US and UK cuz they felt that Anglo-Americanism was becoming too universal and losing its sense of blood and soil. Charles Lindbergh was one. The Duke of something in UK was another. And Italian-Americans were looking out for Italy. According to the film critic Andrew Sarris, his parents were both pro-German before Greece was invaded by Germany.
    After WWII during the early yrs of Cold War, Anglo-Americans wondered if Jewish-Americans could be trusted as so many Jews appeared to be commie agents or Zionist spies.

    Naturally, if there were a war between nation A and nation B with US as a neutral observer, A-Americans will likely side with nation A while B-Americans will likely side with nation B. And A-Americans would push a foreign policy favoring nation A while B-Americans would push a foreign policy favoring nation B. Both proposals would be American foreign policy but A-American foreign policy proposal would be markedly different from the B-American foreign policy.

    Prior to Pearl Harbor, it was difficult for the US government to take sides since German-Americans sided with Germany and Jewish-Americans sided with enemies of Germany. Italian-Americans would likely have sided with Italy unless they were leftist and hated Mussolini. Though Japanese-Americans and Chinese-Americans were hardly powerful, Japanese-Americans sympathized with Japan and Chinese-Americans sympathized with China. If any of these groups could control American foreign policy, they would have steered it to favor the interest of their homeland in the Old World. As it happened, the rulers of America were Anglo-Americans, and they sympathized most with the UK. But as US had a large German population that sympathized with Germany and as Americans didn't want their sons to die in a possible war, Americans were isolationist.
    But when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on America, America's hand was forced to take the war to Japan and Germany. American foreign policy became simplified because it now had a an enemy that declared war on it. Even German-Americans who sympathized with Germany were now compelled to get on the bandwagon.
    But suppose there had been no Pearl Harbor or Germany's declaration of war on America. Then, it would have been a tougher call for US foreign policy to take sides. As US hadn't been attacked, it would have had no reason to fight any nation. Also, as US had many German-Americans as well as Anglo-Americans, who was to say Anglo-American-favored foreign policy should take precedence over German-American-favored foreign policy if indeed US foreign policy should reflect the interests of all Americans?

    Anyway, as America became ever more diverse and as non-Anglo-Americans gained greater power after WWII, American foreign policy became more troubled yet. Of course, the group whose power grew the most was the Jews. And Jewish vision of the world was different from those of various non-Jews.
    Because everyone is supposed to be a 'good American' in America and work for the good of America in general, everyone ideally needs to repress his or her narrow ethnic interest for the common American interest. Anglo-Americans who'd long dominated US foreign policy pretended to be for the common good of all Americans, but in fact, they'd used foreign policy to favor their own racial/ethnic interest. After all, their policy didn't much care for black-American interests or Mexican-American interests. And Anglo-American foreign policy didn't much care about Irish-American interest, Italian-American interest, Russian-American interest, or Polish-American interest. But because the idea of 'America' was supposed to be bigger than any ethnicity, Anglo-Americans always framed and justified their foreign policy as having been devised for the common good of all.

    And others groups did the same. As non-Anglo-Americans gained greater power through electoral numbers, lobbying groups, and politicians, they too came to have a say in American foreign policy.
    But of course, a Greek-American had different ideas than an Italian-American or a Turkish-American. When it came to non-Greek issues, a Greek-American could be impartial. But when it came to foreign policy issues pertaining Greece, he was likely to favor Greece over other nations. (And non-Anglos were less impartial due to their stronger tribalism. FDR, to his credit, didn't go too far in favoring UK over other nations, and he didn't care for Churchill's racially dismissive remarks about non-whites. But such 'fairness' would become the Achilles' heel of Anglos as they began to play more and more fair when other groups, especially Jews, had no intention of playing fair.) But of course, whether it was a Greek-American or Turkish-American in government, he would never admit that his proposed policy was designed to favor his kinfolk. He would try to frame in terms of common good of all Americans or some idealized issue about human rights or international law. Use abstractions to obfuscate what are essentially tribal passions and agendas --- just like the kingdoms of old justified their tribal aggressions in the name of doing God's work for the higher good of all.

    So, one thing for sure, there is no such thing as generic American foreign policy. There are only hyphenated-American foreign policies. However much such may be obfuscated by abstractions about 'human rights' and 'international justice', there is a tribalism hidden somewhere. It's like that Polish-American guy Zbig Brzezinski. Being a Polack, he obviously had his homeland(then under Russian rule) in mind when he advised Jimmy Carter. Though the general US policy was anti-Soviet, Zbig was more passionate in his anti-Soviet stance since Poles were under Russian tyranny. So, Zbig worked especially hard to undermine the USSR by dragging it into Afghanistan. If Carter's sec of state had been someone whose nation wasn't oppressed by communism, the policy might have been less hostile. Anyway, Zbig couldn't admit that his Polishness was the reason for his decisions. It would seem petty, like when dufus George W. Bush said he invaded Iraq cuz Hussein once threatened to kill his daddy. It's like what they say in THE GODFATHER. It's business, not personal. Of course, it's all personal, but one must make it seem like it's only business. So, even though Zbig was personally angry with the Soviets cuz his Polackland was under commie rule, he claimed that his proposed policy was really about the national good regardless of ethnicity.

    To understand US foreign policy, we need to be specificist about the power. There must be nearly 200 ethnic groups as America took in immigrants from nations all over. There are Guatamalan-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Polish-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Turkish-Americans, etc. There are also Native American or Indian-Amerians, Eskimo-Americans, Hawaiian-Americans, etc. But do most of these groups have power over US foreign policy? Most groups might press on their local politician for some tribal favors, but it's mostly piddly-dink stuff.
    Now, Cuban-Americans have considerable power in Florida, and as it is a swing state, Cuban-Americans even has sizable impact on US foreign policy, especially in regards to Cuba but to communism in general as Cuban-Americans were mostly anti-communist due to Castro.
    And Irish-Americans played a significant role in the politics of Ireland. But generally speaking, these kinds of ethno-biased foreign policies were limited in scope as most people came from one part of the world.
    After all, Burmese-Americans only care about Burma and nothing else. And Armenian-Americans only care about Armenia. And Greek-Americans care about Greece and Irish-Americans care about Ireland.

    But Jews were different. Their foreign policy was bound to have global implications/repercussions cuz Jews got great power in the Middle East, South Africa, EU, US, Russia, other Anglophone nations, and even in parts of Latin America.
    The most powerful group in America are the Jews. And they control US foreign policy. Though Jews revile Wasp elites of the past for having favored European immigration over the non-European, they insist on a US foreign policy that favors Jewish interests and Israel(with which US is said to have a special relation)over all others must prevail.
    If US is indeed a nation of people from all over the world, why should its foreign policy favor one ethnic group over all others? Why should it favor Jewish-Zionist interests over Palestinian-American interests?
    When it comes to Greece and Turkey and Cyprus, US foreign policy plays it neutral and 'fair'. Greek-Americans lobby for Greeks in Cyprus while Turkish-Americans lobby for Turks in Cyprus, but US foreign policy favors neither. Now, if Greek-Americans were the ruling elites of America, things might be different. Greeks might convince Americans that America has a special relationship with Greece(a nation that deserves special recognition for its gifts to mankind with stuff like philosophy and democracy) and steer US might to drive Turks out of Cyprus and let Greeks have all of it. Or if Turkish-Americans were the ruling elites of America, they might use US foreign policy for Turkish-centric agendas.
    But then, it wouldn't sound right for Greek-Americans or Turkish-Americans to say US foreign policy should ONLY be about their ethnic interest. They will try to abstract their ethnic agenda into 'universalist' pleas centered around 'human rights', 'stopping genocide', 'upholding international law', or some such. To convince all Americans(most of whom are not Greek) to go along, the Greek elites would have to invoke something other than narrow Greek interests.

    And this is where we are with the Jews. On the one hand, with their power of media and Holocaust cult, Jews have morally browbeaten all Americans into accepting that Israel must be given special consideration and that US foreign policy must generally favor Israel. BUT, Jews can't always justify their Jewish-dominant foreign policy on Jewish interests alone as more and more Americans(most of whom are not Jewish) will feel like dupes and cucks and suckers for an ethnic minority elite that is using other peoples for their narrow agendas.
    So, when Jews planned the war on Iraq, they invoked human rights, evil Hussein as new hitler, spreading democracy, and getting rid of WMD. (If Neocons really believed Hussein had WMD, why would they have invaded? Wouldn't Hussein have used them when back into a corner? Wouldn't many 1000s or even 10,000s of Americans been killed as a result? If neocons were fully convinced that Hussein really had WMDs, they would have thought twice about the invasion. The fact that they were eager to take out Hussein suggests they didn't believe in the WMD jazz.) Of course, the main reason for the Iraq Invasion was War for Israel and Zionist domination of the Middle East. But Jews couldn't say it and instead used abstractions to fool Americans that it was for the good of all Americans. So, dummies like Kyle in THE AMERICAN SNIPER went to Iraq to fight 'muzzies' out of conviction that he was protecting his wife and kids from terrorists in Iraq cuz... "if we don't fight them over there, we will fight them over here."

    All this anti-Iran foreign policy has also been driven by Jewish-American ethnic interest. Same goes for anti-Russian foreign policy. Jews are pissed at Russia cuz they almost came to own all of it. Putin offers lots of wealth and privilege for Jews in Russia, but that isn't good enough for Jews who feel like the new Hitlers. It's like it wasn't good enough for Hitler to rule Germany or dominate most of Europe. He just had to have Russia as well.
    But Jews will never admit that their ethnic interest was at the center of all these foreign policy maneuvers. They will cook up an endless stream of bogus nonsense about human rights and international law. But if Jewish-Americans care so much about human rights, why is there no discussion of how Israel was founded via ethnic cleansing? Or how Israel continues to oppress Palestinians? Or how Israel ignores international laws and has 300 nukes and still holds onto Golan Heights? Where is Victoria Nuland on that?

    Seriously, if there were no Jews in the US, would current US foreign policy be what it is? Would US really be at loggerheads with Russia that has only limited regional ambitions and wants to do business with Europe? Would US have such bad relations with Middle East nations except Saudi Arabia and other ultra-reactionary Gulf states whose human rights violations are conveniently overlooked for alliance sake? As long as those Gulf lowlifes aid and abet the Jewish agenda in the Middle East, Jewish-American foreign policy is okay with them. Gulf State Sunnis will do anything to crush the Shias and secular Arab modernizers.

    Anyway, there are so many ethnic groups in America, but when it comes to foreign policy, the only ones that really matter are Jews and Wasps as their sidekicks.
    So, if we want to be clear-headed about American power, we need to hyphenate American foreign policy. Don't call it American foreign policy but Jewish-American foreign policy or Zio-US foreign policy. If we say 'American foreign policy', it implies that it has the approval of all Americans and that it serves all Americans equally.
    But who in his right mind thinks that Palestinian-Americans believe that the Jewish-American foreign policy is fair and just to Palestinians? Who in his right mind thinks that a Syrian-Americans believe that Jewish-American foreign policy is fair and just to Syrians?

    What is called 'American' is really about 'which ethnic group has the power and the means to shape and force its vision of American Interests on all other Americans of different ethnicity?' For much of American history, it was Anglo-Americans who had such power. And with Wasps, their domination was somewhat justified as they laid the foundations of America and did most in the crucial early stages to envision and build America. Anglo-American laid the foundations of what it means to be American. It was the model to assimilate to.

    But Jews became the new ruling elites and decided to change Americanism so that everyone had to assimilate to the Jewish vision of America as a 'nation of immigrants', 'nation with special relation with Israel', 'a nation of homo marriage', 'nation of eternal white guilt', and etc. And not only Anglo-Americans but all Americans of so many different ethnicities are told they must also 'assimilate' to the Jewish vision of Americanism as the true Americanism.

    But why should the support of Zionist oppression of Palestinians be the central theme of Americanism or American foreign policy for non-Jews, especially non-whites? Also, if Jews insist on the importance of 'white guilt' as the cornerstone of new Americanism, then wouldn't non-white Americans be angry with the sight of white Jews oppressing swarthy non-white Palestinians?

    This could be why some Jews are now saying that Jews must no longer be considered as 'white'. If Jews are not white, then the Jews who are oppressing the Palestinians are not white. Since it is about non-white Jews oppressing non-white Palestinians, SJW types will care less since Western Progressivism is mostly about vilifying white people and mostly ignores non-whites oppressing non-whites. I mean SJW never cared about black-on-black oppression in Africa. They only cared about Apartheid even though white rule in South Africa was mild compared to black-on-black massacres.

    Anyway, we need to focus on the ethnicity of power. We must stop speaking of American power in general terms. Power in America is now very ethno-specific. Jews rule and control American foreign policy. It must be called Jewish-American foreign policy. And since Homos are the mini-me's of Jews, there is also the homo-American foreign policy, like the 'gay war on Russia' cuz Kremlin won't allow homo victory parades on Red Square.

    Unless we employ such specificist lingo, we will be under the impression that American foreign policy represents us all. It most certainly doesn't. It serves the ethnic interests of the ruling elites who use abstractions of idealism and high-minded principles to obfuscate what are really their narrow ethnic interests.

    Nobody will read it Sissy Factory. Save it for your own site Andrea. Here you should get to the point.

    You are a gay male in denial with aspergers. Neither condition are the fault of the Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Nobody will read it Sissy Factory. Save it for your own site Andrea. Here you should get to the point."

    I do it just for you. Your only reason for living is to stalk and troll this site. You see, I made your day again.
    , @Matra
    Comment of the week!
    , @Wyrd
    Go back to gibbering there's no such thing as Cultural Marxism, you useful idiot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Only this: amen, amen, amen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. AndrewR says:
    @Priss Factor
    "There was a time, not so long ago, when Americans had no problem with this, when Americans accepted a diversity of regimes abroad. Indeed, a belief in nonintervention abroad was once the very cornerstone of American foreign policy."

    This wasn't totally true as there had been American foreign policy rhetoric about spreading its values of Christianity and democracy and human rights and all that stuff.
    After all, that's how US got involved in the Spanish-American War. US beat the Spanish Empire real fast, but then it got mired in a nasty war in the Philippines. US had its vision of how Filos should be, but the Filos had their own ideas. They didn't want Americans meddling with their national tradition of putting on orange suits and dancing to Michael Jackson's BEAT IT.

    But it's true enough that Americans were less intrusive in the past than they are today. Part of the reason was that the American hegemony is relatively recent. Up to WWII, the world was divided among various mega-empires. It as after WWII that British, French, and Japanese empires all fell apart. So, was the US the only empire? No, there was the USSR, made all the more formidable with the fall of China to communism and then wars in Korea and Vietnam. Eventually, Russia and China would split and go their separate ways, but US saw both as communist threats for some time.
    In this climate, US had to WOO nations to its side. It couldn't just go around kicking ass cuz Soviets would support any nation pissed with the US.

    But with the fall of the USSR, all the small weak nations had no protector against US power. It was USA all the way. Even so, most Americans never cared much about foreign policy, and most American ethnic groups have generally ignored world events. Black Americans don't know much about black Africa and don't much care. And most ethnic groups either lack power or have lost their sense of connectedness to the old world nations of their own origina. Most German-Americans don't care about Germany and don't even speak the language. And Asian-Americans don't have the power to push the Asian agenda. And despite all the hysteria about Sharia law, Muslim/Arab power is piddly in the US.

    The only two groups that make any difference in US foreign policy are Jews and Wasps(and maybe homos). Though Wasp power has been in decline and since British Empire is no more, there is less reason for Wasps to get so riled up about foreign policy. But then, maybe the decline of wasp power in domestic affairs is the reason why so many look to foreign policy to feel a sense of power. We sense this especially among GOP wasps or waspies(non-wasps who've been waspized) like John McCain and John Bolton. In the US, they are servile to Jews and must apologize for their 'white privilege' to Negroes and Hispanics.
    It is in foreign policy where they can act tough and big and put on the cowboy act. Bush could destroy Iraq but show no remorse but grovel for what wasn't even his fault in New Orleans after Katrina.
    McCain, a pooty cat before Jews, roars like a lion at the Middle East, China, and Russia. We can see this dynamic among ordinary white Americans too. In the US, they must swallow their pride and always feel sorry cuz they're blamed for 'white privilege' and 'racism'. But if they join the military, they can go to the Middle East and blow it up real good(like the clown soldiers in Godard's LES CARABINIERS). It's like Kyle took out his white male angst out on Iraqis in THE AMERICAN SNIPER. He made believe that he was 'defending' and 'protecting' the US from 'terrorists' in Iraq, completely blind to the fact that Jews and homos were turning the white race into a bunch of maggoty cucks. Brits are much the same. As Jewish-controlled PC dominates the UK, British whites cannot even feel racial and national pride in their own homeland. So, the only tough pride left for Brits is by throwing their weight around in foreign affairs. It's like the cuck Cameron says Assad must go. Wow, what a tough guy. He hasn't the balls to defend his own white British folks, but he acts tough and says he's veddy veddy angry with Assad. Of course, Wasp foreign policy is essentially controlled by Jews(and homos), but it makes wasps feel tough and special cuz they can growl at nations like Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and etc. They can bark like dogs while pretending they are masters of the world.

    Another reason why Wasps feel special rapport with foreign policy is because we are living in an Anglophone world and Anglo-legal world. Though Jews control UK and US, the world order that Jews inherited or stole from Wasps was created by Anglo/American might, vision, imagination, diligence, and ambition. Anglos created it, and Jews took over it. To be sure, it was created with considerable Jewish input as Jews had been big in finance and trade in the Anglo World. Anyway, with English as the world language and with American/English culture(at least with stuff like Harry Potter books) sweeping the world, Anglos still feel that they have the right to steer world events(or help Jews steer it). Niall Ferguson is something of a cuck and a representative of a fallen power, but to the extent that so much of the world was created by Anglo-power and still operates according to Anglo legacy, he feels his people are still in the game, and in a way, they are cuz UK is still a big player in finance, fashion, and trade.
    The world of ideas is still concentrated in the Anglo world, English language movies dominate the world, English language songs are the world standard. English language universities in US and UK dominate academia.

    Of course, as Jews are the real masters of the Anglo/American world, wasps must play second-fiddle, but that still means Wasps are only below Jews in world power. Especially because Brits once used to rule the world and because Anglo-Americans had been so spectacular in their rise to power, there is still a residue of ambition in the Anglo soul, and this can lead to overly aggressive stances of people like McCain, Bolton the dolton, Hillary, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, good ole Ollie North the clown, and etc.
    GOP especially tries to score points via foreign policy cuz it is morally on the defensive on the domestic front as the core faiths of the US are MLK worship, Jew worship, homo worship, and feminist bitching. Since Negroes, Jews, Homos, and women --- as top holy victim groups --- are prevalent in the Democratic Party(whereas GOP is dominated by 'evil racist' white electorate), GOP feels morally inferior at home. So, it tries to score moral points by rattling the saber at 'evil foreign' tyrants or supporting Israel by pretending that it is facing yet another 'existential' threat or holocaust by a whole bunch of 'new hitlers' that spring up faster than 'new Dylans' in the 1960/7os:
    https://books.google.com/books?id=_dEddefiYx0C&pg=PA334&lpg=PA334&dq=book+of+rock+list+100+new+dylans&source=bl&ots=VRPpisrru5&sig=9fNcVhhfnF0DBxDA-3yrbcBrw7M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAWoVChMIxpKZwIWjyAIVxVk-Ch3x-AWw#v=onepage&q=book%20of%20rock%20list%20100%20new%20dylans&f=false

    This is why the end of the Cold War was more damaging to the GOP as it could no longer go crying 'wolf', whereas Democrats can just cry wolf by pointing to 'racist conservative whites'. For a while, 9/11 was a blessing for GOP righteousness, but Bush II messed it up real good by letting Jews exploit it for their own nefarious purposes.

    Even without foreign policy, Dems have the upperhand cuz Libs control the Narrative and made it out to be 'good whites' allied with holy victims against evil 'racist' 'bad whites', aka conservatives. Unless the GOP changes the Narrative at home, it will keep seeking justification by yammering about foreign policy, which however is controlled by Jews. That is why Ann Coulter was so angry about all those GOP cucks at the debate going on about Israel.
    Coulter is a nut and a liar, but she is right to say that the GOP war and Conservative renewal must be about white Americans taking their last stand IN America than directing all their energy at foreign issues that does no one any good but to the Jews who control globalism.
    But Ann cannot succeed at this unless she adopts a truly honest race-ist view of humanity. Unless she addresses the problems of higher Jewish IQ and stronger Negro muscle, her blows will keep missing the target. She swings hard at Mexicans, but Mexers are just numbers. They are not the real power. How ridiculous are the Mestizo Mexers? They demographically dominate Mexico but are still ruled by what is more or less a white minority elite down there.

    The real power of America is Jewish Power.

    Indeed, there is no single generic American Power or American Interest.
    American Interest and Power must always be understood in terms of hyphenation. We need the Specifics of Power when we talk about America.

    In the beginning, there was Anglo-American Power. While America had Negroes, French, Jews, Spanish, and others in small numbers, American power was Anglo-American Power. And as Anglos got the headstart in America, German-Americans and Dutch-Americans assimilated into Anglo-America, and they also served Anglo-American interests. Later, the Irish-Catholics arrived, and their vision and interest diverged from that of Anglo-American Protestants. In America, Protestant anxiety about Catholic was often synonymous with Anglo trepidation about the Irish. Though there were common interests among Anglo-Americans and Irish-Americans, they didn't see eye to eye on everything. Anglo-Americans felt closer to Britain(despite the War of Independence) and Irish-Americans felt closer to Ireland. And as Irish power began to grow, Anglo-American foreign policy and Irish-American foreign policy sometimes clashed. Lots of Irish-Americans would later support the IRA whereas Anglo-American elites generally sided with British policy.

    Now, foreign policy could differ even among the same ethnic group along ideological lines. For example, some Anglo-Americans were 'isolatonist realists' while others were 'interventionist idealists'. But ideologies come and go whereas ethnic identification tend to remain, at least among some groups with a powerful sense of history and grievance.
    As US became more diverse, its foreign policy also became more complicated. As different groups in America had different ethnic sympathies, it was difficult to lay down a single American foreign policy to satisfy all. During WWI, German-Americans weren't happy with rising hostility toward Germany by the Wilson administration that represented Liberal Anglo-American foreign policy. And during WWII, white Americans wondered if Japanese-Americans could be trusted. And prior to Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the US, plenty of German-Americans were pro-German and lobbied for a US policy that was pro-German. In some cases, even race-conscious Anglo-Americans began to sympathize more with Germans in both US and UK cuz they felt that Anglo-Americanism was becoming too universal and losing its sense of blood and soil. Charles Lindbergh was one. The Duke of something in UK was another. And Italian-Americans were looking out for Italy. According to the film critic Andrew Sarris, his parents were both pro-German before Greece was invaded by Germany.
    After WWII during the early yrs of Cold War, Anglo-Americans wondered if Jewish-Americans could be trusted as so many Jews appeared to be commie agents or Zionist spies.

    Naturally, if there were a war between nation A and nation B with US as a neutral observer, A-Americans will likely side with nation A while B-Americans will likely side with nation B. And A-Americans would push a foreign policy favoring nation A while B-Americans would push a foreign policy favoring nation B. Both proposals would be American foreign policy but A-American foreign policy proposal would be markedly different from the B-American foreign policy.

    Prior to Pearl Harbor, it was difficult for the US government to take sides since German-Americans sided with Germany and Jewish-Americans sided with enemies of Germany. Italian-Americans would likely have sided with Italy unless they were leftist and hated Mussolini. Though Japanese-Americans and Chinese-Americans were hardly powerful, Japanese-Americans sympathized with Japan and Chinese-Americans sympathized with China. If any of these groups could control American foreign policy, they would have steered it to favor the interest of their homeland in the Old World. As it happened, the rulers of America were Anglo-Americans, and they sympathized most with the UK. But as US had a large German population that sympathized with Germany and as Americans didn't want their sons to die in a possible war, Americans were isolationist.
    But when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on America, America's hand was forced to take the war to Japan and Germany. American foreign policy became simplified because it now had a an enemy that declared war on it. Even German-Americans who sympathized with Germany were now compelled to get on the bandwagon.
    But suppose there had been no Pearl Harbor or Germany's declaration of war on America. Then, it would have been a tougher call for US foreign policy to take sides. As US hadn't been attacked, it would have had no reason to fight any nation. Also, as US had many German-Americans as well as Anglo-Americans, who was to say Anglo-American-favored foreign policy should take precedence over German-American-favored foreign policy if indeed US foreign policy should reflect the interests of all Americans?

    Anyway, as America became ever more diverse and as non-Anglo-Americans gained greater power after WWII, American foreign policy became more troubled yet. Of course, the group whose power grew the most was the Jews. And Jewish vision of the world was different from those of various non-Jews.
    Because everyone is supposed to be a 'good American' in America and work for the good of America in general, everyone ideally needs to repress his or her narrow ethnic interest for the common American interest. Anglo-Americans who'd long dominated US foreign policy pretended to be for the common good of all Americans, but in fact, they'd used foreign policy to favor their own racial/ethnic interest. After all, their policy didn't much care for black-American interests or Mexican-American interests. And Anglo-American foreign policy didn't much care about Irish-American interest, Italian-American interest, Russian-American interest, or Polish-American interest. But because the idea of 'America' was supposed to be bigger than any ethnicity, Anglo-Americans always framed and justified their foreign policy as having been devised for the common good of all.

    And others groups did the same. As non-Anglo-Americans gained greater power through electoral numbers, lobbying groups, and politicians, they too came to have a say in American foreign policy.
    But of course, a Greek-American had different ideas than an Italian-American or a Turkish-American. When it came to non-Greek issues, a Greek-American could be impartial. But when it came to foreign policy issues pertaining Greece, he was likely to favor Greece over other nations. (And non-Anglos were less impartial due to their stronger tribalism. FDR, to his credit, didn't go too far in favoring UK over other nations, and he didn't care for Churchill's racially dismissive remarks about non-whites. But such 'fairness' would become the Achilles' heel of Anglos as they began to play more and more fair when other groups, especially Jews, had no intention of playing fair.) But of course, whether it was a Greek-American or Turkish-American in government, he would never admit that his proposed policy was designed to favor his kinfolk. He would try to frame in terms of common good of all Americans or some idealized issue about human rights or international law. Use abstractions to obfuscate what are essentially tribal passions and agendas --- just like the kingdoms of old justified their tribal aggressions in the name of doing God's work for the higher good of all.

    So, one thing for sure, there is no such thing as generic American foreign policy. There are only hyphenated-American foreign policies. However much such may be obfuscated by abstractions about 'human rights' and 'international justice', there is a tribalism hidden somewhere. It's like that Polish-American guy Zbig Brzezinski. Being a Polack, he obviously had his homeland(then under Russian rule) in mind when he advised Jimmy Carter. Though the general US policy was anti-Soviet, Zbig was more passionate in his anti-Soviet stance since Poles were under Russian tyranny. So, Zbig worked especially hard to undermine the USSR by dragging it into Afghanistan. If Carter's sec of state had been someone whose nation wasn't oppressed by communism, the policy might have been less hostile. Anyway, Zbig couldn't admit that his Polishness was the reason for his decisions. It would seem petty, like when dufus George W. Bush said he invaded Iraq cuz Hussein once threatened to kill his daddy. It's like what they say in THE GODFATHER. It's business, not personal. Of course, it's all personal, but one must make it seem like it's only business. So, even though Zbig was personally angry with the Soviets cuz his Polackland was under commie rule, he claimed that his proposed policy was really about the national good regardless of ethnicity.

    To understand US foreign policy, we need to be specificist about the power. There must be nearly 200 ethnic groups as America took in immigrants from nations all over. There are Guatamalan-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Polish-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Turkish-Americans, etc. There are also Native American or Indian-Amerians, Eskimo-Americans, Hawaiian-Americans, etc. But do most of these groups have power over US foreign policy? Most groups might press on their local politician for some tribal favors, but it's mostly piddly-dink stuff.
    Now, Cuban-Americans have considerable power in Florida, and as it is a swing state, Cuban-Americans even has sizable impact on US foreign policy, especially in regards to Cuba but to communism in general as Cuban-Americans were mostly anti-communist due to Castro.
    And Irish-Americans played a significant role in the politics of Ireland. But generally speaking, these kinds of ethno-biased foreign policies were limited in scope as most people came from one part of the world.
    After all, Burmese-Americans only care about Burma and nothing else. And Armenian-Americans only care about Armenia. And Greek-Americans care about Greece and Irish-Americans care about Ireland.

    But Jews were different. Their foreign policy was bound to have global implications/repercussions cuz Jews got great power in the Middle East, South Africa, EU, US, Russia, other Anglophone nations, and even in parts of Latin America.
    The most powerful group in America are the Jews. And they control US foreign policy. Though Jews revile Wasp elites of the past for having favored European immigration over the non-European, they insist on a US foreign policy that favors Jewish interests and Israel(with which US is said to have a special relation)over all others must prevail.
    If US is indeed a nation of people from all over the world, why should its foreign policy favor one ethnic group over all others? Why should it favor Jewish-Zionist interests over Palestinian-American interests?
    When it comes to Greece and Turkey and Cyprus, US foreign policy plays it neutral and 'fair'. Greek-Americans lobby for Greeks in Cyprus while Turkish-Americans lobby for Turks in Cyprus, but US foreign policy favors neither. Now, if Greek-Americans were the ruling elites of America, things might be different. Greeks might convince Americans that America has a special relationship with Greece(a nation that deserves special recognition for its gifts to mankind with stuff like philosophy and democracy) and steer US might to drive Turks out of Cyprus and let Greeks have all of it. Or if Turkish-Americans were the ruling elites of America, they might use US foreign policy for Turkish-centric agendas.
    But then, it wouldn't sound right for Greek-Americans or Turkish-Americans to say US foreign policy should ONLY be about their ethnic interest. They will try to abstract their ethnic agenda into 'universalist' pleas centered around 'human rights', 'stopping genocide', 'upholding international law', or some such. To convince all Americans(most of whom are not Greek) to go along, the Greek elites would have to invoke something other than narrow Greek interests.

    And this is where we are with the Jews. On the one hand, with their power of media and Holocaust cult, Jews have morally browbeaten all Americans into accepting that Israel must be given special consideration and that US foreign policy must generally favor Israel. BUT, Jews can't always justify their Jewish-dominant foreign policy on Jewish interests alone as more and more Americans(most of whom are not Jewish) will feel like dupes and cucks and suckers for an ethnic minority elite that is using other peoples for their narrow agendas.
    So, when Jews planned the war on Iraq, they invoked human rights, evil Hussein as new hitler, spreading democracy, and getting rid of WMD. (If Neocons really believed Hussein had WMD, why would they have invaded? Wouldn't Hussein have used them when back into a corner? Wouldn't many 1000s or even 10,000s of Americans been killed as a result? If neocons were fully convinced that Hussein really had WMDs, they would have thought twice about the invasion. The fact that they were eager to take out Hussein suggests they didn't believe in the WMD jazz.) Of course, the main reason for the Iraq Invasion was War for Israel and Zionist domination of the Middle East. But Jews couldn't say it and instead used abstractions to fool Americans that it was for the good of all Americans. So, dummies like Kyle in THE AMERICAN SNIPER went to Iraq to fight 'muzzies' out of conviction that he was protecting his wife and kids from terrorists in Iraq cuz... "if we don't fight them over there, we will fight them over here."

    All this anti-Iran foreign policy has also been driven by Jewish-American ethnic interest. Same goes for anti-Russian foreign policy. Jews are pissed at Russia cuz they almost came to own all of it. Putin offers lots of wealth and privilege for Jews in Russia, but that isn't good enough for Jews who feel like the new Hitlers. It's like it wasn't good enough for Hitler to rule Germany or dominate most of Europe. He just had to have Russia as well.
    But Jews will never admit that their ethnic interest was at the center of all these foreign policy maneuvers. They will cook up an endless stream of bogus nonsense about human rights and international law. But if Jewish-Americans care so much about human rights, why is there no discussion of how Israel was founded via ethnic cleansing? Or how Israel continues to oppress Palestinians? Or how Israel ignores international laws and has 300 nukes and still holds onto Golan Heights? Where is Victoria Nuland on that?

    Seriously, if there were no Jews in the US, would current US foreign policy be what it is? Would US really be at loggerheads with Russia that has only limited regional ambitions and wants to do business with Europe? Would US have such bad relations with Middle East nations except Saudi Arabia and other ultra-reactionary Gulf states whose human rights violations are conveniently overlooked for alliance sake? As long as those Gulf lowlifes aid and abet the Jewish agenda in the Middle East, Jewish-American foreign policy is okay with them. Gulf State Sunnis will do anything to crush the Shias and secular Arab modernizers.

    Anyway, there are so many ethnic groups in America, but when it comes to foreign policy, the only ones that really matter are Jews and Wasps as their sidekicks.
    So, if we want to be clear-headed about American power, we need to hyphenate American foreign policy. Don't call it American foreign policy but Jewish-American foreign policy or Zio-US foreign policy. If we say 'American foreign policy', it implies that it has the approval of all Americans and that it serves all Americans equally.
    But who in his right mind thinks that Palestinian-Americans believe that the Jewish-American foreign policy is fair and just to Palestinians? Who in his right mind thinks that a Syrian-Americans believe that Jewish-American foreign policy is fair and just to Syrians?

    What is called 'American' is really about 'which ethnic group has the power and the means to shape and force its vision of American Interests on all other Americans of different ethnicity?' For much of American history, it was Anglo-Americans who had such power. And with Wasps, their domination was somewhat justified as they laid the foundations of America and did most in the crucial early stages to envision and build America. Anglo-American laid the foundations of what it means to be American. It was the model to assimilate to.

    But Jews became the new ruling elites and decided to change Americanism so that everyone had to assimilate to the Jewish vision of America as a 'nation of immigrants', 'nation with special relation with Israel', 'a nation of homo marriage', 'nation of eternal white guilt', and etc. And not only Anglo-Americans but all Americans of so many different ethnicities are told they must also 'assimilate' to the Jewish vision of Americanism as the true Americanism.

    But why should the support of Zionist oppression of Palestinians be the central theme of Americanism or American foreign policy for non-Jews, especially non-whites? Also, if Jews insist on the importance of 'white guilt' as the cornerstone of new Americanism, then wouldn't non-white Americans be angry with the sight of white Jews oppressing swarthy non-white Palestinians?

    This could be why some Jews are now saying that Jews must no longer be considered as 'white'. If Jews are not white, then the Jews who are oppressing the Palestinians are not white. Since it is about non-white Jews oppressing non-white Palestinians, SJW types will care less since Western Progressivism is mostly about vilifying white people and mostly ignores non-whites oppressing non-whites. I mean SJW never cared about black-on-black oppression in Africa. They only cared about Apartheid even though white rule in South Africa was mild compared to black-on-black massacres.

    Anyway, we need to focus on the ethnicity of power. We must stop speaking of American power in general terms. Power in America is now very ethno-specific. Jews rule and control American foreign policy. It must be called Jewish-American foreign policy. And since Homos are the mini-me's of Jews, there is also the homo-American foreign policy, like the 'gay war on Russia' cuz Kremlin won't allow homo victory parades on Red Square.

    Unless we employ such specificist lingo, we will be under the impression that American foreign policy represents us all. It most certainly doesn't. It serves the ethnic interests of the ruling elites who use abstractions of idealism and high-minded principles to obfuscate what are really their narrow ethnic interests.

    The Asian agenda? Lmao. FOH

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    FOH

    Lookey like Asian prefer PHO. Supposedly it good Vietnamese noodle.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0rWLeBDG7s
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @AndrewR
    The Asian agenda? Lmao. FOH

    FOH

    Lookey like Asian prefer PHO. Supposedly it good Vietnamese noodle.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @Rifleman
    Nobody will read it Sissy Factory. Save it for your own site Andrea. Here you should get to the point.

    You are a gay male in denial with aspergers. Neither condition are the fault of the Jews.

    “Nobody will read it Sissy Factory. Save it for your own site Andrea. Here you should get to the point.”

    I do it just for you. Your only reason for living is to stalk and troll this site. You see, I made your day again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rifleman

    Your only reason for living is to stalk and troll this site.
     
    Your lack of self awareness is severe.

    You troll this site with the same basic overwritten comments over and over again.

    You obsess on Jews and Gays and then go into aspergy rants trying to connect everything in the world to Jews and gays.

    You have a site Andrea, go there and use it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Rifleman says:
    @Priss Factor
    "Nobody will read it Sissy Factory. Save it for your own site Andrea. Here you should get to the point."

    I do it just for you. Your only reason for living is to stalk and troll this site. You see, I made your day again.

    Your only reason for living is to stalk and troll this site.

    Your lack of self awareness is severe.

    You troll this site with the same basic overwritten comments over and over again.

    You obsess on Jews and Gays and then go into aspergy rants trying to connect everything in the world to Jews and gays.

    You have a site Andrea, go there and use it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    What is this 'Andrea' crap?

    What's next? Gonna confuse me for Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Brannis?

    Go back to your tribe. Your aspergy stalking is getting embarrassing.

    If you need help, go see a shrink. I know you're begging for attention and sympathy, but I'm not your mother.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. […] noreply@blogger.com (VD) America’s empire-builders are receiving a humiliating lesson in the limits of human power:Fourteen years after we invaded Afghanistan, Afghan troops are once again fighting Taliban forces […]

    Read More
  13. Anonymous says: • Website • Disclaimer
    @Bill Jones
    Paddy's lies never end, do they?

    The US has murdered over two million Iraqi's.

    “After all, that’s how US got involved in the Spanish-American War. US beat the Spanish Empire real fast, but then it got mired in a nasty war in the Philippines. US had its vision of how Filos should be, but the Filos had their own ideas. ”

    If you’ve read Buchanan’s book “A Republic, Not an Empire,” you know he identifies the Span-Am War as the point when America “ate the poisoned fruit of Empire,” and began wading into the wider world on a mission to make it look like itself. And from a foreign policy point of view, it’s been all downhill since. So much for Washington’s admonishment to keep clear of entangling alliances. These days we link ourselves to every penny ante group out there that turns our head.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "If you’ve read Buchanan’s book “A Republic, Not an Empire,” you know he identifies the Span-Am War as the point when America “ate the poisoned fruit of Empire,” and began wading into the wider world on a mission to make it look like itself. And from a foreign policy point of view, it’s been all downhill since. "

    I haven't read Pat B's book, but I recently read Gore Vidal's "Empire," which had been sitting on my shelves unread for 15 years or so. (I would highly recommend the book.) It is set around the time of the Spanish-American War of 1898, and, as with all of Vidal's "historical novels," it involves a cast of real historical figures and a few fictional ones. Two of the main characters are real, Henry Adams, the great-grandson of President John Adams and the grandson of President John Q. Adams, and John Hay, the former secretary to President Lincoln and Secretary of State of McKinley and T. Roosevelt. The two were great friends and had adjoining houses on Lafayette Square, overlooking the White House and, since 1931, the site of the Hay-Adams Hotel. Two things stuck out to me. Hay, who was secretary to President Lincoln during our Civil War that was fought to preserve the Union, was Secretary of State in 1903 when the U.S. sided with the rebels in Panama who were fighting to secede from Colombia, since we were eager to secure the rights to build the Panama Canal. Secondly, the novel touches on the fact that, after we sided with the rebels in the Philippines who were fighting for independence from Spain, we fought the rebels after they aided our successful war against Spain on the grounds that they were not capable of ruling their own country. That's what happens when you go down the Empire road: you lose sight of and you compromise your own basic principles
    , @Bill Jones
    The US has merely followed the US tradition of using alliances as tripwires to guarantee war: Belgium in 1914, Poland in 1939 are the obvious examples. There was no chance of delivering on the promise but the ensuing war was certain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @Rifleman

    Your only reason for living is to stalk and troll this site.
     
    Your lack of self awareness is severe.

    You troll this site with the same basic overwritten comments over and over again.

    You obsess on Jews and Gays and then go into aspergy rants trying to connect everything in the world to Jews and gays.

    You have a site Andrea, go there and use it.

    What is this ‘Andrea’ crap?

    What’s next? Gonna confuse me for Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Brannis?

    Go back to your tribe. Your aspergy stalking is getting embarrassing.

    If you need help, go see a shrink. I know you’re begging for attention and sympathy, but I’m not your mother.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rifleman

    What is this ‘Andrea’ crap?
     
    Why deny it? What are you ashamed of?

    You have even posted here on Unz as Andrea Ostrov Letania.


    Your blog posts are here!

    Now back to your self hatred about homo power, Jew power etc etc etc etc working to destroy all opposition.

    You still refuse to explain why you chose Priss Factor, The Priss Factory and a girl's name as your comment names.

    Kinda give away what you really are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Rifleman says:
    @Priss Factor
    What is this 'Andrea' crap?

    What's next? Gonna confuse me for Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Brannis?

    Go back to your tribe. Your aspergy stalking is getting embarrassing.

    If you need help, go see a shrink. I know you're begging for attention and sympathy, but I'm not your mother.

    What is this ‘Andrea’ crap?

    Why deny it? What are you ashamed of?

    You have even posted here on Unz as Andrea Ostrov Letania.

    Your blog posts are here!

    Now back to your self hatred about homo power, Jew power etc etc etc etc working to destroy all opposition.

    You still refuse to explain why you chose Priss Factor, The Priss Factory and a girl’s name as your comment names.

    Kinda give away what you really are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    If she wishes to comment under Priss Factor, that is her choice. Why do you insist on an explanation? Why do you post under 'Rifleman'? Are you a shooter or sniper?

    The fact is many find her posts quite good, as I do. Obviously she has read history, sociology etc, and while they may be her interpretations, they are nevertheless, interesting. Everything in life is somebody's interpretation. Most interpretations are worthless and boring. So if you have studied some history, it is useful to look for interesting interpretations of it as well.

    Why don't you put some thought together and write about your views. You might need to spend some time reading and digesting first though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. tbraton says:
    @Anonymous
    "After all, that’s how US got involved in the Spanish-American War. US beat the Spanish Empire real fast, but then it got mired in a nasty war in the Philippines. US had its vision of how Filos should be, but the Filos had their own ideas. "

    If you've read Buchanan's book "A Republic, Not an Empire," you know he identifies the Span-Am War as the point when America "ate the poisoned fruit of Empire," and began wading into the wider world on a mission to make it look like itself. And from a foreign policy point of view, it's been all downhill since. So much for Washington's admonishment to keep clear of entangling alliances. These days we link ourselves to every penny ante group out there that turns our head.

    “If you’ve read Buchanan’s book “A Republic, Not an Empire,” you know he identifies the Span-Am War as the point when America “ate the poisoned fruit of Empire,” and began wading into the wider world on a mission to make it look like itself. And from a foreign policy point of view, it’s been all downhill since. ”

    I haven’t read Pat B’s book, but I recently read Gore Vidal’s “Empire,” which had been sitting on my shelves unread for 15 years or so. (I would highly recommend the book.) It is set around the time of the Spanish-American War of 1898, and, as with all of Vidal’s “historical novels,” it involves a cast of real historical figures and a few fictional ones. Two of the main characters are real, Henry Adams, the great-grandson of President John Adams and the grandson of President John Q. Adams, and John Hay, the former secretary to President Lincoln and Secretary of State of McKinley and T. Roosevelt. The two were great friends and had adjoining houses on Lafayette Square, overlooking the White House and, since 1931, the site of the Hay-Adams Hotel. Two things stuck out to me. Hay, who was secretary to President Lincoln during our Civil War that was fought to preserve the Union, was Secretary of State in 1903 when the U.S. sided with the rebels in Panama who were fighting to secede from Colombia, since we were eager to secure the rights to build the Panama Canal. Secondly, the novel touches on the fact that, after we sided with the rebels in the Philippines who were fighting for independence from Spain, we fought the rebels after they aided our successful war against Spain on the grounds that they were not capable of ruling their own country. That’s what happens when you go down the Empire road: you lose sight of and you compromise your own basic principles

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

    Do you realize now what have you done?
    Yes. Obama made Netanyahu go into an apoplectic attack of 49 minutes silence.

    “That notion was highlighted by a revelation in Politico the very morning of Bibi’s speech at the UN. The report says that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has twice requested that the President publicly state that the United States would veto any UN Security Council Resolution calling for a Palestinian state and that both times, the President has declined to agree to such an action.” http://lobelog.com/silent-arrogance-netanyahu-at-the-un/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    Regarding Bibi's silence: I don't mean to go all Godwin here, but a certain German politician, a very skilled orator by any account, was also notable for his silent pauses.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Buchanan’s view depends on conflating Obama’s foreign policy record and Bush’s foreign policy record despite that America’s failures have followed from Obama’s deviation from Bush, most of all Obama’s course change with Iraq.

    Regarding the Iraq intervention:
    1. Saddam: What We Now Know (link) by Jim Lacey* draws from the Iraq Survey Group (re WMD) and Iraqi Perspectives Project (re terrorism). * Dr. Lacey was a researcher and author for the Iraqi Perspectives Project (link).
    2. Explanation (link) of the law and policy, fact basis for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
    3. UN Recognizes ‘Major Changes’ In Iraq (link) by VP Joe Biden on behalf of the UN Security Council.
    4. Withdrawal Symptoms: The Bungling of the Iraq Exit (link) by OIF senior advisor Rick Brennan.
    5. How Obama Abandoned Democracy in Iraq (link) by OIF official and senior advisor Emma Sky.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. @Anonymous
    "After all, that’s how US got involved in the Spanish-American War. US beat the Spanish Empire real fast, but then it got mired in a nasty war in the Philippines. US had its vision of how Filos should be, but the Filos had their own ideas. "

    If you've read Buchanan's book "A Republic, Not an Empire," you know he identifies the Span-Am War as the point when America "ate the poisoned fruit of Empire," and began wading into the wider world on a mission to make it look like itself. And from a foreign policy point of view, it's been all downhill since. So much for Washington's admonishment to keep clear of entangling alliances. These days we link ourselves to every penny ante group out there that turns our head.

    The US has merely followed the US tradition of using alliances as tripwires to guarantee war: Belgium in 1914, Poland in 1939 are the obvious examples. There was no chance of delivering on the promise but the ensuing war was certain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Aren't your 1914 and 1939 "tripwire" references mistaken in saying "US" rather than "UK"? Or is one of us completely ignorant. I know of the guarantee of Belgium's neutrality which brought Britain into the war in 1914 - a war only joined by the US in 1917. Likewise the guarantee given to Poland in 1939 which led to WW2 in September. The US didn't join in till attacked by Japan on 7th December 1941.
    , @Bill Jones
    It was of course UK.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @KA
    Do you realize now what have you done?
    Yes. Obama made Netanyahu go into an apoplectic attack of 49 minutes silence.


    "That notion was highlighted by a revelation in Politico the very morning of Bibi’s speech at the UN. The report says that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has twice requested that the President publicly state that the United States would veto any UN Security Council Resolution calling for a Palestinian state and that both times, the President has declined to agree to such an action." http://lobelog.com/silent-arrogance-netanyahu-at-the-un/

    Regarding Bibi’s silence: I don’t mean to go all Godwin here, but a certain German politician, a very skilled orator by any account, was also notable for his silent pauses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Priss Factor
    One reason why Jewish-American foreign policy is more intrusive, interventionist, and subversive around the world is because US is now a minority ruled nation, US belongs to Jewish-Homo cabal or the Jomo Cabal.

    As their ideal is elite minoritarian, they seek to undermine all majoritarian nations around the world. They push their agenda in the name of 'tolerance' but it is a neo-Leninist sneak-attack to eventually pave the way for supremacist minority-elite power.
    Jews have used their NGOs in Russia to promote the homo agenda in order to make Russians kowtow to the homo elites who serve as proxies of Jewish power. Jews use homo power as the anesthetics to weaken and prepare the 'patient' for the Jewish Shylockian scalpel.

    When US was ruled by majority-gentile whites, Americans could understand and identify with the idea that other nations should be ruled by their majority populations.
    Wilson is much reviled but his ideal was every nation should be ruled by its majority-kind.
    And FDR sympathized with Indians against the British imperialist elites.

    But now, as US is ruled by the Jomo Cabal, it seeks to undermine majoritarianism everywhere.
    So, the Jomos tell Europeans to open the gates and let tons of invaders in.
    Jomos say Europeans should cheer for black athletes. Jomos say white women should use their wombs to grow black babies. Jomos say homos must be celebrated by straights. Jomos say all politicians must love Israel more than their own kind. Jomos say every nation should favor its immigrants or invaders over the native population.

    This Jomo foreign policy is spread not only by diplomacy and military aggression but by soft power of pop culture and academic influence. Hollywood movies promote homo agenda everywhere.

    It pretends to be about promoting tolerance but the real agenda is to make the majority favor the minority.
    Germans, cucked and brainwashed, think their own ethnic interestsin their homeland should take the backseat to 'refugee' interests,
    Jomos are rubbing their hands with glee.

    Interesting comment, but I don’t agree with your odda to the evil jew Rosenfeld (Roosevelt) and the vicious evil jew puppet Wilson, with them yids taked power, money and the goverment

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Sam Shama says:
    @Rifleman

    What is this ‘Andrea’ crap?
     
    Why deny it? What are you ashamed of?

    You have even posted here on Unz as Andrea Ostrov Letania.


    Your blog posts are here!

    Now back to your self hatred about homo power, Jew power etc etc etc etc working to destroy all opposition.

    You still refuse to explain why you chose Priss Factor, The Priss Factory and a girl's name as your comment names.

    Kinda give away what you really are.

    If she wishes to comment under Priss Factor, that is her choice. Why do you insist on an explanation? Why do you post under ‘Rifleman’? Are you a shooter or sniper?

    The fact is many find her posts quite good, as I do. Obviously she has read history, sociology etc, and while they may be her interpretations, they are nevertheless, interesting. Everything in life is somebody’s interpretation. Most interpretations are worthless and boring. So if you have studied some history, it is useful to look for interesting interpretations of it as well.

    Why don’t you put some thought together and write about your views. You might need to spend some time reading and digesting first though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Do you think The Priss Factory is female? Women don't usually have such a thing about homosexuality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Bill Jones
    The US has merely followed the US tradition of using alliances as tripwires to guarantee war: Belgium in 1914, Poland in 1939 are the obvious examples. There was no chance of delivering on the promise but the ensuing war was certain.

    Aren’t your 1914 and 1939 “tripwire” references mistaken in saying “US” rather than “UK”? Or is one of us completely ignorant. I know of the guarantee of Belgium’s neutrality which brought Britain into the war in 1914 – a war only joined by the US in 1917. Likewise the guarantee given to Poland in 1939 which led to WW2 in September. The US didn’t join in till attacked by Japan on 7th December 1941.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Sam Shama
    If she wishes to comment under Priss Factor, that is her choice. Why do you insist on an explanation? Why do you post under 'Rifleman'? Are you a shooter or sniper?

    The fact is many find her posts quite good, as I do. Obviously she has read history, sociology etc, and while they may be her interpretations, they are nevertheless, interesting. Everything in life is somebody's interpretation. Most interpretations are worthless and boring. So if you have studied some history, it is useful to look for interesting interpretations of it as well.

    Why don't you put some thought together and write about your views. You might need to spend some time reading and digesting first though.

    Do you think The Priss Factory is female? Women don’t usually have such a thing about homosexuality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I've just followed the link above to Andrea Ostrov Latania and then googled as well. So, yes, female.

    And I take this opportunity to add an unrelated comment on her work. She obviously knows a lot more about US history, demography and politics than she does about the UK where Jewish, and specifically pro-Israeli, influence is nothing like as strong as in the US. It couldn't be because of the relative numbers and also because single minded financial supporters of politicians, except perhaps the unions, can't have nearly as much influence for structural reasons.
    , @Sam Shama
    Priss is female (I think), and has an eccentric charm about her writing. I think she deliberately magnifies the 'bigoted' views to get her points across, some of which in many respects do have more than a grain of truth to them. Jewish lobby influence in the U.k., while not nearly as palpable as in the U.S, nevertheless more than moves the needle. I have exchanged views with her in these threads a time or two and I've been struck by her interpretations. For what its worth, I certainly don't think she is anti-semitic at all, but recognises that any great power, if unchecked can lead to severe distortions, and in that I agree with her.

    About homosexuality, I think her objection is to their hijacking of institutions and deliberate imposition on cultures causing dilution. She might even be sympathetic to their identity as something entirely biological and unavoidable.

    Well I'd better let her speak for herself!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Wizard of Oz
    Do you think The Priss Factory is female? Women don't usually have such a thing about homosexuality.

    I’ve just followed the link above to Andrea Ostrov Latania and then googled as well. So, yes, female.

    And I take this opportunity to add an unrelated comment on her work. She obviously knows a lot more about US history, demography and politics than she does about the UK where Jewish, and specifically pro-Israeli, influence is nothing like as strong as in the US. It couldn’t be because of the relative numbers and also because single minded financial supporters of politicians, except perhaps the unions, can’t have nearly as much influence for structural reasons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Priss Factor
    "There was a time, not so long ago, when Americans had no problem with this, when Americans accepted a diversity of regimes abroad. Indeed, a belief in nonintervention abroad was once the very cornerstone of American foreign policy."

    This wasn't totally true as there had been American foreign policy rhetoric about spreading its values of Christianity and democracy and human rights and all that stuff.
    After all, that's how US got involved in the Spanish-American War. US beat the Spanish Empire real fast, but then it got mired in a nasty war in the Philippines. US had its vision of how Filos should be, but the Filos had their own ideas. They didn't want Americans meddling with their national tradition of putting on orange suits and dancing to Michael Jackson's BEAT IT.

    But it's true enough that Americans were less intrusive in the past than they are today. Part of the reason was that the American hegemony is relatively recent. Up to WWII, the world was divided among various mega-empires. It as after WWII that British, French, and Japanese empires all fell apart. So, was the US the only empire? No, there was the USSR, made all the more formidable with the fall of China to communism and then wars in Korea and Vietnam. Eventually, Russia and China would split and go their separate ways, but US saw both as communist threats for some time.
    In this climate, US had to WOO nations to its side. It couldn't just go around kicking ass cuz Soviets would support any nation pissed with the US.

    But with the fall of the USSR, all the small weak nations had no protector against US power. It was USA all the way. Even so, most Americans never cared much about foreign policy, and most American ethnic groups have generally ignored world events. Black Americans don't know much about black Africa and don't much care. And most ethnic groups either lack power or have lost their sense of connectedness to the old world nations of their own origina. Most German-Americans don't care about Germany and don't even speak the language. And Asian-Americans don't have the power to push the Asian agenda. And despite all the hysteria about Sharia law, Muslim/Arab power is piddly in the US.

    The only two groups that make any difference in US foreign policy are Jews and Wasps(and maybe homos). Though Wasp power has been in decline and since British Empire is no more, there is less reason for Wasps to get so riled up about foreign policy. But then, maybe the decline of wasp power in domestic affairs is the reason why so many look to foreign policy to feel a sense of power. We sense this especially among GOP wasps or waspies(non-wasps who've been waspized) like John McCain and John Bolton. In the US, they are servile to Jews and must apologize for their 'white privilege' to Negroes and Hispanics.
    It is in foreign policy where they can act tough and big and put on the cowboy act. Bush could destroy Iraq but show no remorse but grovel for what wasn't even his fault in New Orleans after Katrina.
    McCain, a pooty cat before Jews, roars like a lion at the Middle East, China, and Russia. We can see this dynamic among ordinary white Americans too. In the US, they must swallow their pride and always feel sorry cuz they're blamed for 'white privilege' and 'racism'. But if they join the military, they can go to the Middle East and blow it up real good(like the clown soldiers in Godard's LES CARABINIERS). It's like Kyle took out his white male angst out on Iraqis in THE AMERICAN SNIPER. He made believe that he was 'defending' and 'protecting' the US from 'terrorists' in Iraq, completely blind to the fact that Jews and homos were turning the white race into a bunch of maggoty cucks. Brits are much the same. As Jewish-controlled PC dominates the UK, British whites cannot even feel racial and national pride in their own homeland. So, the only tough pride left for Brits is by throwing their weight around in foreign affairs. It's like the cuck Cameron says Assad must go. Wow, what a tough guy. He hasn't the balls to defend his own white British folks, but he acts tough and says he's veddy veddy angry with Assad. Of course, Wasp foreign policy is essentially controlled by Jews(and homos), but it makes wasps feel tough and special cuz they can growl at nations like Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and etc. They can bark like dogs while pretending they are masters of the world.

    Another reason why Wasps feel special rapport with foreign policy is because we are living in an Anglophone world and Anglo-legal world. Though Jews control UK and US, the world order that Jews inherited or stole from Wasps was created by Anglo/American might, vision, imagination, diligence, and ambition. Anglos created it, and Jews took over it. To be sure, it was created with considerable Jewish input as Jews had been big in finance and trade in the Anglo World. Anyway, with English as the world language and with American/English culture(at least with stuff like Harry Potter books) sweeping the world, Anglos still feel that they have the right to steer world events(or help Jews steer it). Niall Ferguson is something of a cuck and a representative of a fallen power, but to the extent that so much of the world was created by Anglo-power and still operates according to Anglo legacy, he feels his people are still in the game, and in a way, they are cuz UK is still a big player in finance, fashion, and trade.
    The world of ideas is still concentrated in the Anglo world, English language movies dominate the world, English language songs are the world standard. English language universities in US and UK dominate academia.

    Of course, as Jews are the real masters of the Anglo/American world, wasps must play second-fiddle, but that still means Wasps are only below Jews in world power. Especially because Brits once used to rule the world and because Anglo-Americans had been so spectacular in their rise to power, there is still a residue of ambition in the Anglo soul, and this can lead to overly aggressive stances of people like McCain, Bolton the dolton, Hillary, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, good ole Ollie North the clown, and etc.
    GOP especially tries to score points via foreign policy cuz it is morally on the defensive on the domestic front as the core faiths of the US are MLK worship, Jew worship, homo worship, and feminist bitching. Since Negroes, Jews, Homos, and women --- as top holy victim groups --- are prevalent in the Democratic Party(whereas GOP is dominated by 'evil racist' white electorate), GOP feels morally inferior at home. So, it tries to score moral points by rattling the saber at 'evil foreign' tyrants or supporting Israel by pretending that it is facing yet another 'existential' threat or holocaust by a whole bunch of 'new hitlers' that spring up faster than 'new Dylans' in the 1960/7os:
    https://books.google.com/books?id=_dEddefiYx0C&pg=PA334&lpg=PA334&dq=book+of+rock+list+100+new+dylans&source=bl&ots=VRPpisrru5&sig=9fNcVhhfnF0DBxDA-3yrbcBrw7M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAWoVChMIxpKZwIWjyAIVxVk-Ch3x-AWw#v=onepage&q=book%20of%20rock%20list%20100%20new%20dylans&f=false

    This is why the end of the Cold War was more damaging to the GOP as it could no longer go crying 'wolf', whereas Democrats can just cry wolf by pointing to 'racist conservative whites'. For a while, 9/11 was a blessing for GOP righteousness, but Bush II messed it up real good by letting Jews exploit it for their own nefarious purposes.

    Even without foreign policy, Dems have the upperhand cuz Libs control the Narrative and made it out to be 'good whites' allied with holy victims against evil 'racist' 'bad whites', aka conservatives. Unless the GOP changes the Narrative at home, it will keep seeking justification by yammering about foreign policy, which however is controlled by Jews. That is why Ann Coulter was so angry about all those GOP cucks at the debate going on about Israel.
    Coulter is a nut and a liar, but she is right to say that the GOP war and Conservative renewal must be about white Americans taking their last stand IN America than directing all their energy at foreign issues that does no one any good but to the Jews who control globalism.
    But Ann cannot succeed at this unless she adopts a truly honest race-ist view of humanity. Unless she addresses the problems of higher Jewish IQ and stronger Negro muscle, her blows will keep missing the target. She swings hard at Mexicans, but Mexers are just numbers. They are not the real power. How ridiculous are the Mestizo Mexers? They demographically dominate Mexico but are still ruled by what is more or less a white minority elite down there.

    The real power of America is Jewish Power.

    Indeed, there is no single generic American Power or American Interest.
    American Interest and Power must always be understood in terms of hyphenation. We need the Specifics of Power when we talk about America.

    In the beginning, there was Anglo-American Power. While America had Negroes, French, Jews, Spanish, and others in small numbers, American power was Anglo-American Power. And as Anglos got the headstart in America, German-Americans and Dutch-Americans assimilated into Anglo-America, and they also served Anglo-American interests. Later, the Irish-Catholics arrived, and their vision and interest diverged from that of Anglo-American Protestants. In America, Protestant anxiety about Catholic was often synonymous with Anglo trepidation about the Irish. Though there were common interests among Anglo-Americans and Irish-Americans, they didn't see eye to eye on everything. Anglo-Americans felt closer to Britain(despite the War of Independence) and Irish-Americans felt closer to Ireland. And as Irish power began to grow, Anglo-American foreign policy and Irish-American foreign policy sometimes clashed. Lots of Irish-Americans would later support the IRA whereas Anglo-American elites generally sided with British policy.

    Now, foreign policy could differ even among the same ethnic group along ideological lines. For example, some Anglo-Americans were 'isolatonist realists' while others were 'interventionist idealists'. But ideologies come and go whereas ethnic identification tend to remain, at least among some groups with a powerful sense of history and grievance.
    As US became more diverse, its foreign policy also became more complicated. As different groups in America had different ethnic sympathies, it was difficult to lay down a single American foreign policy to satisfy all. During WWI, German-Americans weren't happy with rising hostility toward Germany by the Wilson administration that represented Liberal Anglo-American foreign policy. And during WWII, white Americans wondered if Japanese-Americans could be trusted. And prior to Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the US, plenty of German-Americans were pro-German and lobbied for a US policy that was pro-German. In some cases, even race-conscious Anglo-Americans began to sympathize more with Germans in both US and UK cuz they felt that Anglo-Americanism was becoming too universal and losing its sense of blood and soil. Charles Lindbergh was one. The Duke of something in UK was another. And Italian-Americans were looking out for Italy. According to the film critic Andrew Sarris, his parents were both pro-German before Greece was invaded by Germany.
    After WWII during the early yrs of Cold War, Anglo-Americans wondered if Jewish-Americans could be trusted as so many Jews appeared to be commie agents or Zionist spies.

    Naturally, if there were a war between nation A and nation B with US as a neutral observer, A-Americans will likely side with nation A while B-Americans will likely side with nation B. And A-Americans would push a foreign policy favoring nation A while B-Americans would push a foreign policy favoring nation B. Both proposals would be American foreign policy but A-American foreign policy proposal would be markedly different from the B-American foreign policy.

    Prior to Pearl Harbor, it was difficult for the US government to take sides since German-Americans sided with Germany and Jewish-Americans sided with enemies of Germany. Italian-Americans would likely have sided with Italy unless they were leftist and hated Mussolini. Though Japanese-Americans and Chinese-Americans were hardly powerful, Japanese-Americans sympathized with Japan and Chinese-Americans sympathized with China. If any of these groups could control American foreign policy, they would have steered it to favor the interest of their homeland in the Old World. As it happened, the rulers of America were Anglo-Americans, and they sympathized most with the UK. But as US had a large German population that sympathized with Germany and as Americans didn't want their sons to die in a possible war, Americans were isolationist.
    But when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on America, America's hand was forced to take the war to Japan and Germany. American foreign policy became simplified because it now had a an enemy that declared war on it. Even German-Americans who sympathized with Germany were now compelled to get on the bandwagon.
    But suppose there had been no Pearl Harbor or Germany's declaration of war on America. Then, it would have been a tougher call for US foreign policy to take sides. As US hadn't been attacked, it would have had no reason to fight any nation. Also, as US had many German-Americans as well as Anglo-Americans, who was to say Anglo-American-favored foreign policy should take precedence over German-American-favored foreign policy if indeed US foreign policy should reflect the interests of all Americans?

    Anyway, as America became ever more diverse and as non-Anglo-Americans gained greater power after WWII, American foreign policy became more troubled yet. Of course, the group whose power grew the most was the Jews. And Jewish vision of the world was different from those of various non-Jews.
    Because everyone is supposed to be a 'good American' in America and work for the good of America in general, everyone ideally needs to repress his or her narrow ethnic interest for the common American interest. Anglo-Americans who'd long dominated US foreign policy pretended to be for the common good of all Americans, but in fact, they'd used foreign policy to favor their own racial/ethnic interest. After all, their policy didn't much care for black-American interests or Mexican-American interests. And Anglo-American foreign policy didn't much care about Irish-American interest, Italian-American interest, Russian-American interest, or Polish-American interest. But because the idea of 'America' was supposed to be bigger than any ethnicity, Anglo-Americans always framed and justified their foreign policy as having been devised for the common good of all.

    And others groups did the same. As non-Anglo-Americans gained greater power through electoral numbers, lobbying groups, and politicians, they too came to have a say in American foreign policy.
    But of course, a Greek-American had different ideas than an Italian-American or a Turkish-American. When it came to non-Greek issues, a Greek-American could be impartial. But when it came to foreign policy issues pertaining Greece, he was likely to favor Greece over other nations. (And non-Anglos were less impartial due to their stronger tribalism. FDR, to his credit, didn't go too far in favoring UK over other nations, and he didn't care for Churchill's racially dismissive remarks about non-whites. But such 'fairness' would become the Achilles' heel of Anglos as they began to play more and more fair when other groups, especially Jews, had no intention of playing fair.) But of course, whether it was a Greek-American or Turkish-American in government, he would never admit that his proposed policy was designed to favor his kinfolk. He would try to frame in terms of common good of all Americans or some idealized issue about human rights or international law. Use abstractions to obfuscate what are essentially tribal passions and agendas --- just like the kingdoms of old justified their tribal aggressions in the name of doing God's work for the higher good of all.

    So, one thing for sure, there is no such thing as generic American foreign policy. There are only hyphenated-American foreign policies. However much such may be obfuscated by abstractions about 'human rights' and 'international justice', there is a tribalism hidden somewhere. It's like that Polish-American guy Zbig Brzezinski. Being a Polack, he obviously had his homeland(then under Russian rule) in mind when he advised Jimmy Carter. Though the general US policy was anti-Soviet, Zbig was more passionate in his anti-Soviet stance since Poles were under Russian tyranny. So, Zbig worked especially hard to undermine the USSR by dragging it into Afghanistan. If Carter's sec of state had been someone whose nation wasn't oppressed by communism, the policy might have been less hostile. Anyway, Zbig couldn't admit that his Polishness was the reason for his decisions. It would seem petty, like when dufus George W. Bush said he invaded Iraq cuz Hussein once threatened to kill his daddy. It's like what they say in THE GODFATHER. It's business, not personal. Of course, it's all personal, but one must make it seem like it's only business. So, even though Zbig was personally angry with the Soviets cuz his Polackland was under commie rule, he claimed that his proposed policy was really about the national good regardless of ethnicity.

    To understand US foreign policy, we need to be specificist about the power. There must be nearly 200 ethnic groups as America took in immigrants from nations all over. There are Guatamalan-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Polish-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Turkish-Americans, etc. There are also Native American or Indian-Amerians, Eskimo-Americans, Hawaiian-Americans, etc. But do most of these groups have power over US foreign policy? Most groups might press on their local politician for some tribal favors, but it's mostly piddly-dink stuff.
    Now, Cuban-Americans have considerable power in Florida, and as it is a swing state, Cuban-Americans even has sizable impact on US foreign policy, especially in regards to Cuba but to communism in general as Cuban-Americans were mostly anti-communist due to Castro.
    And Irish-Americans played a significant role in the politics of Ireland. But generally speaking, these kinds of ethno-biased foreign policies were limited in scope as most people came from one part of the world.
    After all, Burmese-Americans only care about Burma and nothing else. And Armenian-Americans only care about Armenia. And Greek-Americans care about Greece and Irish-Americans care about Ireland.

    But Jews were different. Their foreign policy was bound to have global implications/repercussions cuz Jews got great power in the Middle East, South Africa, EU, US, Russia, other Anglophone nations, and even in parts of Latin America.
    The most powerful group in America are the Jews. And they control US foreign policy. Though Jews revile Wasp elites of the past for having favored European immigration over the non-European, they insist on a US foreign policy that favors Jewish interests and Israel(with which US is said to have a special relation)over all others must prevail.
    If US is indeed a nation of people from all over the world, why should its foreign policy favor one ethnic group over all others? Why should it favor Jewish-Zionist interests over Palestinian-American interests?
    When it comes to Greece and Turkey and Cyprus, US foreign policy plays it neutral and 'fair'. Greek-Americans lobby for Greeks in Cyprus while Turkish-Americans lobby for Turks in Cyprus, but US foreign policy favors neither. Now, if Greek-Americans were the ruling elites of America, things might be different. Greeks might convince Americans that America has a special relationship with Greece(a nation that deserves special recognition for its gifts to mankind with stuff like philosophy and democracy) and steer US might to drive Turks out of Cyprus and let Greeks have all of it. Or if Turkish-Americans were the ruling elites of America, they might use US foreign policy for Turkish-centric agendas.
    But then, it wouldn't sound right for Greek-Americans or Turkish-Americans to say US foreign policy should ONLY be about their ethnic interest. They will try to abstract their ethnic agenda into 'universalist' pleas centered around 'human rights', 'stopping genocide', 'upholding international law', or some such. To convince all Americans(most of whom are not Greek) to go along, the Greek elites would have to invoke something other than narrow Greek interests.

    And this is where we are with the Jews. On the one hand, with their power of media and Holocaust cult, Jews have morally browbeaten all Americans into accepting that Israel must be given special consideration and that US foreign policy must generally favor Israel. BUT, Jews can't always justify their Jewish-dominant foreign policy on Jewish interests alone as more and more Americans(most of whom are not Jewish) will feel like dupes and cucks and suckers for an ethnic minority elite that is using other peoples for their narrow agendas.
    So, when Jews planned the war on Iraq, they invoked human rights, evil Hussein as new hitler, spreading democracy, and getting rid of WMD. (If Neocons really believed Hussein had WMD, why would they have invaded? Wouldn't Hussein have used them when back into a corner? Wouldn't many 1000s or even 10,000s of Americans been killed as a result? If neocons were fully convinced that Hussein really had WMDs, they would have thought twice about the invasion. The fact that they were eager to take out Hussein suggests they didn't believe in the WMD jazz.) Of course, the main reason for the Iraq Invasion was War for Israel and Zionist domination of the Middle East. But Jews couldn't say it and instead used abstractions to fool Americans that it was for the good of all Americans. So, dummies like Kyle in THE AMERICAN SNIPER went to Iraq to fight 'muzzies' out of conviction that he was protecting his wife and kids from terrorists in Iraq cuz... "if we don't fight them over there, we will fight them over here."

    All this anti-Iran foreign policy has also been driven by Jewish-American ethnic interest. Same goes for anti-Russian foreign policy. Jews are pissed at Russia cuz they almost came to own all of it. Putin offers lots of wealth and privilege for Jews in Russia, but that isn't good enough for Jews who feel like the new Hitlers. It's like it wasn't good enough for Hitler to rule Germany or dominate most of Europe. He just had to have Russia as well.
    But Jews will never admit that their ethnic interest was at the center of all these foreign policy maneuvers. They will cook up an endless stream of bogus nonsense about human rights and international law. But if Jewish-Americans care so much about human rights, why is there no discussion of how Israel was founded via ethnic cleansing? Or how Israel continues to oppress Palestinians? Or how Israel ignores international laws and has 300 nukes and still holds onto Golan Heights? Where is Victoria Nuland on that?

    Seriously, if there were no Jews in the US, would current US foreign policy be what it is? Would US really be at loggerheads with Russia that has only limited regional ambitions and wants to do business with Europe? Would US have such bad relations with Middle East nations except Saudi Arabia and other ultra-reactionary Gulf states whose human rights violations are conveniently overlooked for alliance sake? As long as those Gulf lowlifes aid and abet the Jewish agenda in the Middle East, Jewish-American foreign policy is okay with them. Gulf State Sunnis will do anything to crush the Shias and secular Arab modernizers.

    Anyway, there are so many ethnic groups in America, but when it comes to foreign policy, the only ones that really matter are Jews and Wasps as their sidekicks.
    So, if we want to be clear-headed about American power, we need to hyphenate American foreign policy. Don't call it American foreign policy but Jewish-American foreign policy or Zio-US foreign policy. If we say 'American foreign policy', it implies that it has the approval of all Americans and that it serves all Americans equally.
    But who in his right mind thinks that Palestinian-Americans believe that the Jewish-American foreign policy is fair and just to Palestinians? Who in his right mind thinks that a Syrian-Americans believe that Jewish-American foreign policy is fair and just to Syrians?

    What is called 'American' is really about 'which ethnic group has the power and the means to shape and force its vision of American Interests on all other Americans of different ethnicity?' For much of American history, it was Anglo-Americans who had such power. And with Wasps, their domination was somewhat justified as they laid the foundations of America and did most in the crucial early stages to envision and build America. Anglo-American laid the foundations of what it means to be American. It was the model to assimilate to.

    But Jews became the new ruling elites and decided to change Americanism so that everyone had to assimilate to the Jewish vision of America as a 'nation of immigrants', 'nation with special relation with Israel', 'a nation of homo marriage', 'nation of eternal white guilt', and etc. And not only Anglo-Americans but all Americans of so many different ethnicities are told they must also 'assimilate' to the Jewish vision of Americanism as the true Americanism.

    But why should the support of Zionist oppression of Palestinians be the central theme of Americanism or American foreign policy for non-Jews, especially non-whites? Also, if Jews insist on the importance of 'white guilt' as the cornerstone of new Americanism, then wouldn't non-white Americans be angry with the sight of white Jews oppressing swarthy non-white Palestinians?

    This could be why some Jews are now saying that Jews must no longer be considered as 'white'. If Jews are not white, then the Jews who are oppressing the Palestinians are not white. Since it is about non-white Jews oppressing non-white Palestinians, SJW types will care less since Western Progressivism is mostly about vilifying white people and mostly ignores non-whites oppressing non-whites. I mean SJW never cared about black-on-black oppression in Africa. They only cared about Apartheid even though white rule in South Africa was mild compared to black-on-black massacres.

    Anyway, we need to focus on the ethnicity of power. We must stop speaking of American power in general terms. Power in America is now very ethno-specific. Jews rule and control American foreign policy. It must be called Jewish-American foreign policy. And since Homos are the mini-me's of Jews, there is also the homo-American foreign policy, like the 'gay war on Russia' cuz Kremlin won't allow homo victory parades on Red Square.

    Unless we employ such specificist lingo, we will be under the impression that American foreign policy represents us all. It most certainly doesn't. It serves the ethnic interests of the ruling elites who use abstractions of idealism and high-minded principles to obfuscate what are really their narrow ethnic interests.

    I think you are completely wrong in attributing anything like the same power and influence to Jews, especially Israel first Jews, in the UK as you attribute to them in the US. I would be interested in your sources and evidence but you have to surmount the difficulty that there are not nearly as many Jews in the UK as in the US, that they have no Christian fundamentalist backing and that UK politics cannot be manipulated by money as US politics can. Have you ever heard of a major party candidate in the UK being selected or deselected with any reference to Jewish influence?

    Obviously Israel’s survival as a Jewish state benefits from the splitting up of the ME into many small, preferably mutually antagonistic polities. Tackling the perceived threats in rational order of priority they can leave aside any immediate concern about Saudi Arabia as long as the royal family is not overthrown, and Egypt, maybe even if there is another revolution, but Iran and its allies have to rank high as potential threats without overlooking the problem of the Islamic State/ISIS/ISIL/DAESH consolidating and becoming too powerful. And while they think they have to worry about Iran it is hard for them to concentrate on the Turkey problem as it has emerged under Erdogan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Sam Shama says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Do you think The Priss Factory is female? Women don't usually have such a thing about homosexuality.

    Priss is female (I think), and has an eccentric charm about her writing. I think she deliberately magnifies the ‘bigoted’ views to get her points across, some of which in many respects do have more than a grain of truth to them. Jewish lobby influence in the U.k., while not nearly as palpable as in the U.S, nevertheless more than moves the needle. I have exchanged views with her in these threads a time or two and I’ve been struck by her interpretations. For what its worth, I certainly don’t think she is anti-semitic at all, but recognises that any great power, if unchecked can lead to severe distortions, and in that I agree with her.

    About homosexuality, I think her objection is to their hijacking of institutions and deliberate imposition on cultures causing dilution. She might even be sympathetic to their identity as something entirely biological and unavoidable.

    Well I’d better let her speak for herself!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Your a brave man San Shama to say of a woman writing on serious matters that "she has an eccentric charm about her writing". In some female academic circles you would have endangered parts of you which don't grow back. Patronising!!! I can hear the sneer and seethe. But yes, I confess to being likely to read the product of her reading and thinking without being tempted to hit the skip button.

    I wonder if you can flesh out the picture you have of Jewish influence (I.e. relevant to Israel or perhaps to multiculturalism) in the UK. It strikes me that being embarrassed by Israel's cruder actions and saying so is not uncommon amongst UK upper and upper middle class Jews who don't seem to have such noticeable counterparts in the US.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. expeedee says:

    Genes engineer culture. The Middle East is not ready for a western democracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Genes engineer culture. The Middle East is not ready for a western democracy.
     
    The Persian empire of Cyrus was far superior to the freakish democracies of the Bolsheviks, FDR, Churchill, the zionists, the neoconservatives, the R2Pers, the Samantha Power set, the Bushites -- pere and fil -- and most definitely superior to the psychopathology of the Jewish democracy that Netanyahu claims characterizes Israel.

    The pity is that the west has never constructed a Cyrus-like universalist humanist mode of empire.

    Walter Grundmann led theologians and church-goers in Germany in the attempt to identify Jesus as an emulator of Cyrus, i.e. as Aryan, as distinct and separate from the contractual, particularist and exclusivist proclivities of Abrahamism but that project was, of course, condemned as astisemitic..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @expeedee
    Genes engineer culture. The Middle East is not ready for a western democracy.

    Genes engineer culture. The Middle East is not ready for a western democracy.

    The Persian empire of Cyrus was far superior to the freakish democracies of the Bolsheviks, FDR, Churchill, the zionists, the neoconservatives, the R2Pers, the Samantha Power set, the Bushites — pere and fil — and most definitely superior to the psychopathology of the Jewish democracy that Netanyahu claims characterizes Israel.

    The pity is that the west has never constructed a Cyrus-like universalist humanist mode of empire.

    Walter Grundmann led theologians and church-goers in Germany in the attempt to identify Jesus as an emulator of Cyrus, i.e. as Aryan, as distinct and separate from the contractual, particularist and exclusivist proclivities of Abrahamism but that project was, of course, condemned as astisemitic..

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

    The empire strikes back.
    What if the bombing of MSF hospital is not an accident but meant to send a signal to MSF as well as Russia?
    MSF got 345 million USD from US public last year. It is obvious that many Americans would not like to see its hospital treating America’s enemies. Hence the collateral damage to the hospital.
    To Russia: The US can bomb MSF hospital by accident, it can also shoot down Russian warplane by accident. Is Russia really prepared to ride the escalator up to a collision with the United States?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    Here is that 'no fly zone' you all have been clamoring for!

    israli Airforce Command Center in 'stupor' as Russia offers choice of turning back or be destroyed to 4 israli F-15s

    "In the night of 1 to 2 October 2015, six Russian Sukhoi SU-30 took off from SM Syrian airbase Hmimim towards Cyprus before intercepting position attack four Israeli F-15 fighters."
    Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ee8_1443896484&comments=1#HjHWpPWl0XskKSVz.99

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ee8_1443896484&comments=1
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. nick says: • Website

    The Iraq invasion left much more than 100,000 iraqis dead. Well over a million. That’s just this second American devastation of Iraq. The CIA drug cartel has destroyed many, many more countries and millions of people and not just abriad but right here in the USA as well. America is guilty if genocide many times over.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. rastignac says:
    @Priss Factor
    "There was a time, not so long ago, when Americans had no problem with this, when Americans accepted a diversity of regimes abroad. Indeed, a belief in nonintervention abroad was once the very cornerstone of American foreign policy."

    This wasn't totally true as there had been American foreign policy rhetoric about spreading its values of Christianity and democracy and human rights and all that stuff.
    After all, that's how US got involved in the Spanish-American War. US beat the Spanish Empire real fast, but then it got mired in a nasty war in the Philippines. US had its vision of how Filos should be, but the Filos had their own ideas. They didn't want Americans meddling with their national tradition of putting on orange suits and dancing to Michael Jackson's BEAT IT.

    But it's true enough that Americans were less intrusive in the past than they are today. Part of the reason was that the American hegemony is relatively recent. Up to WWII, the world was divided among various mega-empires. It as after WWII that British, French, and Japanese empires all fell apart. So, was the US the only empire? No, there was the USSR, made all the more formidable with the fall of China to communism and then wars in Korea and Vietnam. Eventually, Russia and China would split and go their separate ways, but US saw both as communist threats for some time.
    In this climate, US had to WOO nations to its side. It couldn't just go around kicking ass cuz Soviets would support any nation pissed with the US.

    But with the fall of the USSR, all the small weak nations had no protector against US power. It was USA all the way. Even so, most Americans never cared much about foreign policy, and most American ethnic groups have generally ignored world events. Black Americans don't know much about black Africa and don't much care. And most ethnic groups either lack power or have lost their sense of connectedness to the old world nations of their own origina. Most German-Americans don't care about Germany and don't even speak the language. And Asian-Americans don't have the power to push the Asian agenda. And despite all the hysteria about Sharia law, Muslim/Arab power is piddly in the US.

    The only two groups that make any difference in US foreign policy are Jews and Wasps(and maybe homos). Though Wasp power has been in decline and since British Empire is no more, there is less reason for Wasps to get so riled up about foreign policy. But then, maybe the decline of wasp power in domestic affairs is the reason why so many look to foreign policy to feel a sense of power. We sense this especially among GOP wasps or waspies(non-wasps who've been waspized) like John McCain and John Bolton. In the US, they are servile to Jews and must apologize for their 'white privilege' to Negroes and Hispanics.
    It is in foreign policy where they can act tough and big and put on the cowboy act. Bush could destroy Iraq but show no remorse but grovel for what wasn't even his fault in New Orleans after Katrina.
    McCain, a pooty cat before Jews, roars like a lion at the Middle East, China, and Russia. We can see this dynamic among ordinary white Americans too. In the US, they must swallow their pride and always feel sorry cuz they're blamed for 'white privilege' and 'racism'. But if they join the military, they can go to the Middle East and blow it up real good(like the clown soldiers in Godard's LES CARABINIERS). It's like Kyle took out his white male angst out on Iraqis in THE AMERICAN SNIPER. He made believe that he was 'defending' and 'protecting' the US from 'terrorists' in Iraq, completely blind to the fact that Jews and homos were turning the white race into a bunch of maggoty cucks. Brits are much the same. As Jewish-controlled PC dominates the UK, British whites cannot even feel racial and national pride in their own homeland. So, the only tough pride left for Brits is by throwing their weight around in foreign affairs. It's like the cuck Cameron says Assad must go. Wow, what a tough guy. He hasn't the balls to defend his own white British folks, but he acts tough and says he's veddy veddy angry with Assad. Of course, Wasp foreign policy is essentially controlled by Jews(and homos), but it makes wasps feel tough and special cuz they can growl at nations like Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and etc. They can bark like dogs while pretending they are masters of the world.

    Another reason why Wasps feel special rapport with foreign policy is because we are living in an Anglophone world and Anglo-legal world. Though Jews control UK and US, the world order that Jews inherited or stole from Wasps was created by Anglo/American might, vision, imagination, diligence, and ambition. Anglos created it, and Jews took over it. To be sure, it was created with considerable Jewish input as Jews had been big in finance and trade in the Anglo World. Anyway, with English as the world language and with American/English culture(at least with stuff like Harry Potter books) sweeping the world, Anglos still feel that they have the right to steer world events(or help Jews steer it). Niall Ferguson is something of a cuck and a representative of a fallen power, but to the extent that so much of the world was created by Anglo-power and still operates according to Anglo legacy, he feels his people are still in the game, and in a way, they are cuz UK is still a big player in finance, fashion, and trade.
    The world of ideas is still concentrated in the Anglo world, English language movies dominate the world, English language songs are the world standard. English language universities in US and UK dominate academia.

    Of course, as Jews are the real masters of the Anglo/American world, wasps must play second-fiddle, but that still means Wasps are only below Jews in world power. Especially because Brits once used to rule the world and because Anglo-Americans had been so spectacular in their rise to power, there is still a residue of ambition in the Anglo soul, and this can lead to overly aggressive stances of people like McCain, Bolton the dolton, Hillary, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, good ole Ollie North the clown, and etc.
    GOP especially tries to score points via foreign policy cuz it is morally on the defensive on the domestic front as the core faiths of the US are MLK worship, Jew worship, homo worship, and feminist bitching. Since Negroes, Jews, Homos, and women --- as top holy victim groups --- are prevalent in the Democratic Party(whereas GOP is dominated by 'evil racist' white electorate), GOP feels morally inferior at home. So, it tries to score moral points by rattling the saber at 'evil foreign' tyrants or supporting Israel by pretending that it is facing yet another 'existential' threat or holocaust by a whole bunch of 'new hitlers' that spring up faster than 'new Dylans' in the 1960/7os:
    https://books.google.com/books?id=_dEddefiYx0C&pg=PA334&lpg=PA334&dq=book+of+rock+list+100+new+dylans&source=bl&ots=VRPpisrru5&sig=9fNcVhhfnF0DBxDA-3yrbcBrw7M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAWoVChMIxpKZwIWjyAIVxVk-Ch3x-AWw#v=onepage&q=book%20of%20rock%20list%20100%20new%20dylans&f=false

    This is why the end of the Cold War was more damaging to the GOP as it could no longer go crying 'wolf', whereas Democrats can just cry wolf by pointing to 'racist conservative whites'. For a while, 9/11 was a blessing for GOP righteousness, but Bush II messed it up real good by letting Jews exploit it for their own nefarious purposes.

    Even without foreign policy, Dems have the upperhand cuz Libs control the Narrative and made it out to be 'good whites' allied with holy victims against evil 'racist' 'bad whites', aka conservatives. Unless the GOP changes the Narrative at home, it will keep seeking justification by yammering about foreign policy, which however is controlled by Jews. That is why Ann Coulter was so angry about all those GOP cucks at the debate going on about Israel.
    Coulter is a nut and a liar, but she is right to say that the GOP war and Conservative renewal must be about white Americans taking their last stand IN America than directing all their energy at foreign issues that does no one any good but to the Jews who control globalism.
    But Ann cannot succeed at this unless she adopts a truly honest race-ist view of humanity. Unless she addresses the problems of higher Jewish IQ and stronger Negro muscle, her blows will keep missing the target. She swings hard at Mexicans, but Mexers are just numbers. They are not the real power. How ridiculous are the Mestizo Mexers? They demographically dominate Mexico but are still ruled by what is more or less a white minority elite down there.

    The real power of America is Jewish Power.

    Indeed, there is no single generic American Power or American Interest.
    American Interest and Power must always be understood in terms of hyphenation. We need the Specifics of Power when we talk about America.

    In the beginning, there was Anglo-American Power. While America had Negroes, French, Jews, Spanish, and others in small numbers, American power was Anglo-American Power. And as Anglos got the headstart in America, German-Americans and Dutch-Americans assimilated into Anglo-America, and they also served Anglo-American interests. Later, the Irish-Catholics arrived, and their vision and interest diverged from that of Anglo-American Protestants. In America, Protestant anxiety about Catholic was often synonymous with Anglo trepidation about the Irish. Though there were common interests among Anglo-Americans and Irish-Americans, they didn't see eye to eye on everything. Anglo-Americans felt closer to Britain(despite the War of Independence) and Irish-Americans felt closer to Ireland. And as Irish power began to grow, Anglo-American foreign policy and Irish-American foreign policy sometimes clashed. Lots of Irish-Americans would later support the IRA whereas Anglo-American elites generally sided with British policy.

    Now, foreign policy could differ even among the same ethnic group along ideological lines. For example, some Anglo-Americans were 'isolatonist realists' while others were 'interventionist idealists'. But ideologies come and go whereas ethnic identification tend to remain, at least among some groups with a powerful sense of history and grievance.
    As US became more diverse, its foreign policy also became more complicated. As different groups in America had different ethnic sympathies, it was difficult to lay down a single American foreign policy to satisfy all. During WWI, German-Americans weren't happy with rising hostility toward Germany by the Wilson administration that represented Liberal Anglo-American foreign policy. And during WWII, white Americans wondered if Japanese-Americans could be trusted. And prior to Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the US, plenty of German-Americans were pro-German and lobbied for a US policy that was pro-German. In some cases, even race-conscious Anglo-Americans began to sympathize more with Germans in both US and UK cuz they felt that Anglo-Americanism was becoming too universal and losing its sense of blood and soil. Charles Lindbergh was one. The Duke of something in UK was another. And Italian-Americans were looking out for Italy. According to the film critic Andrew Sarris, his parents were both pro-German before Greece was invaded by Germany.
    After WWII during the early yrs of Cold War, Anglo-Americans wondered if Jewish-Americans could be trusted as so many Jews appeared to be commie agents or Zionist spies.

    Naturally, if there were a war between nation A and nation B with US as a neutral observer, A-Americans will likely side with nation A while B-Americans will likely side with nation B. And A-Americans would push a foreign policy favoring nation A while B-Americans would push a foreign policy favoring nation B. Both proposals would be American foreign policy but A-American foreign policy proposal would be markedly different from the B-American foreign policy.

    Prior to Pearl Harbor, it was difficult for the US government to take sides since German-Americans sided with Germany and Jewish-Americans sided with enemies of Germany. Italian-Americans would likely have sided with Italy unless they were leftist and hated Mussolini. Though Japanese-Americans and Chinese-Americans were hardly powerful, Japanese-Americans sympathized with Japan and Chinese-Americans sympathized with China. If any of these groups could control American foreign policy, they would have steered it to favor the interest of their homeland in the Old World. As it happened, the rulers of America were Anglo-Americans, and they sympathized most with the UK. But as US had a large German population that sympathized with Germany and as Americans didn't want their sons to die in a possible war, Americans were isolationist.
    But when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on America, America's hand was forced to take the war to Japan and Germany. American foreign policy became simplified because it now had a an enemy that declared war on it. Even German-Americans who sympathized with Germany were now compelled to get on the bandwagon.
    But suppose there had been no Pearl Harbor or Germany's declaration of war on America. Then, it would have been a tougher call for US foreign policy to take sides. As US hadn't been attacked, it would have had no reason to fight any nation. Also, as US had many German-Americans as well as Anglo-Americans, who was to say Anglo-American-favored foreign policy should take precedence over German-American-favored foreign policy if indeed US foreign policy should reflect the interests of all Americans?

    Anyway, as America became ever more diverse and as non-Anglo-Americans gained greater power after WWII, American foreign policy became more troubled yet. Of course, the group whose power grew the most was the Jews. And Jewish vision of the world was different from those of various non-Jews.
    Because everyone is supposed to be a 'good American' in America and work for the good of America in general, everyone ideally needs to repress his or her narrow ethnic interest for the common American interest. Anglo-Americans who'd long dominated US foreign policy pretended to be for the common good of all Americans, but in fact, they'd used foreign policy to favor their own racial/ethnic interest. After all, their policy didn't much care for black-American interests or Mexican-American interests. And Anglo-American foreign policy didn't much care about Irish-American interest, Italian-American interest, Russian-American interest, or Polish-American interest. But because the idea of 'America' was supposed to be bigger than any ethnicity, Anglo-Americans always framed and justified their foreign policy as having been devised for the common good of all.

    And others groups did the same. As non-Anglo-Americans gained greater power through electoral numbers, lobbying groups, and politicians, they too came to have a say in American foreign policy.
    But of course, a Greek-American had different ideas than an Italian-American or a Turkish-American. When it came to non-Greek issues, a Greek-American could be impartial. But when it came to foreign policy issues pertaining Greece, he was likely to favor Greece over other nations. (And non-Anglos were less impartial due to their stronger tribalism. FDR, to his credit, didn't go too far in favoring UK over other nations, and he didn't care for Churchill's racially dismissive remarks about non-whites. But such 'fairness' would become the Achilles' heel of Anglos as they began to play more and more fair when other groups, especially Jews, had no intention of playing fair.) But of course, whether it was a Greek-American or Turkish-American in government, he would never admit that his proposed policy was designed to favor his kinfolk. He would try to frame in terms of common good of all Americans or some idealized issue about human rights or international law. Use abstractions to obfuscate what are essentially tribal passions and agendas --- just like the kingdoms of old justified their tribal aggressions in the name of doing God's work for the higher good of all.

    So, one thing for sure, there is no such thing as generic American foreign policy. There are only hyphenated-American foreign policies. However much such may be obfuscated by abstractions about 'human rights' and 'international justice', there is a tribalism hidden somewhere. It's like that Polish-American guy Zbig Brzezinski. Being a Polack, he obviously had his homeland(then under Russian rule) in mind when he advised Jimmy Carter. Though the general US policy was anti-Soviet, Zbig was more passionate in his anti-Soviet stance since Poles were under Russian tyranny. So, Zbig worked especially hard to undermine the USSR by dragging it into Afghanistan. If Carter's sec of state had been someone whose nation wasn't oppressed by communism, the policy might have been less hostile. Anyway, Zbig couldn't admit that his Polishness was the reason for his decisions. It would seem petty, like when dufus George W. Bush said he invaded Iraq cuz Hussein once threatened to kill his daddy. It's like what they say in THE GODFATHER. It's business, not personal. Of course, it's all personal, but one must make it seem like it's only business. So, even though Zbig was personally angry with the Soviets cuz his Polackland was under commie rule, he claimed that his proposed policy was really about the national good regardless of ethnicity.

    To understand US foreign policy, we need to be specificist about the power. There must be nearly 200 ethnic groups as America took in immigrants from nations all over. There are Guatamalan-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Polish-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Turkish-Americans, etc. There are also Native American or Indian-Amerians, Eskimo-Americans, Hawaiian-Americans, etc. But do most of these groups have power over US foreign policy? Most groups might press on their local politician for some tribal favors, but it's mostly piddly-dink stuff.
    Now, Cuban-Americans have considerable power in Florida, and as it is a swing state, Cuban-Americans even has sizable impact on US foreign policy, especially in regards to Cuba but to communism in general as Cuban-Americans were mostly anti-communist due to Castro.
    And Irish-Americans played a significant role in the politics of Ireland. But generally speaking, these kinds of ethno-biased foreign policies were limited in scope as most people came from one part of the world.
    After all, Burmese-Americans only care about Burma and nothing else. And Armenian-Americans only care about Armenia. And Greek-Americans care about Greece and Irish-Americans care about Ireland.

    But Jews were different. Their foreign policy was bound to have global implications/repercussions cuz Jews got great power in the Middle East, South Africa, EU, US, Russia, other Anglophone nations, and even in parts of Latin America.
    The most powerful group in America are the Jews. And they control US foreign policy. Though Jews revile Wasp elites of the past for having favored European immigration over the non-European, they insist on a US foreign policy that favors Jewish interests and Israel(with which US is said to have a special relation)over all others must prevail.
    If US is indeed a nation of people from all over the world, why should its foreign policy favor one ethnic group over all others? Why should it favor Jewish-Zionist interests over Palestinian-American interests?
    When it comes to Greece and Turkey and Cyprus, US foreign policy plays it neutral and 'fair'. Greek-Americans lobby for Greeks in Cyprus while Turkish-Americans lobby for Turks in Cyprus, but US foreign policy favors neither. Now, if Greek-Americans were the ruling elites of America, things might be different. Greeks might convince Americans that America has a special relationship with Greece(a nation that deserves special recognition for its gifts to mankind with stuff like philosophy and democracy) and steer US might to drive Turks out of Cyprus and let Greeks have all of it. Or if Turkish-Americans were the ruling elites of America, they might use US foreign policy for Turkish-centric agendas.
    But then, it wouldn't sound right for Greek-Americans or Turkish-Americans to say US foreign policy should ONLY be about their ethnic interest. They will try to abstract their ethnic agenda into 'universalist' pleas centered around 'human rights', 'stopping genocide', 'upholding international law', or some such. To convince all Americans(most of whom are not Greek) to go along, the Greek elites would have to invoke something other than narrow Greek interests.

    And this is where we are with the Jews. On the one hand, with their power of media and Holocaust cult, Jews have morally browbeaten all Americans into accepting that Israel must be given special consideration and that US foreign policy must generally favor Israel. BUT, Jews can't always justify their Jewish-dominant foreign policy on Jewish interests alone as more and more Americans(most of whom are not Jewish) will feel like dupes and cucks and suckers for an ethnic minority elite that is using other peoples for their narrow agendas.
    So, when Jews planned the war on Iraq, they invoked human rights, evil Hussein as new hitler, spreading democracy, and getting rid of WMD. (If Neocons really believed Hussein had WMD, why would they have invaded? Wouldn't Hussein have used them when back into a corner? Wouldn't many 1000s or even 10,000s of Americans been killed as a result? If neocons were fully convinced that Hussein really had WMDs, they would have thought twice about the invasion. The fact that they were eager to take out Hussein suggests they didn't believe in the WMD jazz.) Of course, the main reason for the Iraq Invasion was War for Israel and Zionist domination of the Middle East. But Jews couldn't say it and instead used abstractions to fool Americans that it was for the good of all Americans. So, dummies like Kyle in THE AMERICAN SNIPER went to Iraq to fight 'muzzies' out of conviction that he was protecting his wife and kids from terrorists in Iraq cuz... "if we don't fight them over there, we will fight them over here."

    All this anti-Iran foreign policy has also been driven by Jewish-American ethnic interest. Same goes for anti-Russian foreign policy. Jews are pissed at Russia cuz they almost came to own all of it. Putin offers lots of wealth and privilege for Jews in Russia, but that isn't good enough for Jews who feel like the new Hitlers. It's like it wasn't good enough for Hitler to rule Germany or dominate most of Europe. He just had to have Russia as well.
    But Jews will never admit that their ethnic interest was at the center of all these foreign policy maneuvers. They will cook up an endless stream of bogus nonsense about human rights and international law. But if Jewish-Americans care so much about human rights, why is there no discussion of how Israel was founded via ethnic cleansing? Or how Israel continues to oppress Palestinians? Or how Israel ignores international laws and has 300 nukes and still holds onto Golan Heights? Where is Victoria Nuland on that?

    Seriously, if there were no Jews in the US, would current US foreign policy be what it is? Would US really be at loggerheads with Russia that has only limited regional ambitions and wants to do business with Europe? Would US have such bad relations with Middle East nations except Saudi Arabia and other ultra-reactionary Gulf states whose human rights violations are conveniently overlooked for alliance sake? As long as those Gulf lowlifes aid and abet the Jewish agenda in the Middle East, Jewish-American foreign policy is okay with them. Gulf State Sunnis will do anything to crush the Shias and secular Arab modernizers.

    Anyway, there are so many ethnic groups in America, but when it comes to foreign policy, the only ones that really matter are Jews and Wasps as their sidekicks.
    So, if we want to be clear-headed about American power, we need to hyphenate American foreign policy. Don't call it American foreign policy but Jewish-American foreign policy or Zio-US foreign policy. If we say 'American foreign policy', it implies that it has the approval of all Americans and that it serves all Americans equally.
    But who in his right mind thinks that Palestinian-Americans believe that the Jewish-American foreign policy is fair and just to Palestinians? Who in his right mind thinks that a Syrian-Americans believe that Jewish-American foreign policy is fair and just to Syrians?

    What is called 'American' is really about 'which ethnic group has the power and the means to shape and force its vision of American Interests on all other Americans of different ethnicity?' For much of American history, it was Anglo-Americans who had such power. And with Wasps, their domination was somewhat justified as they laid the foundations of America and did most in the crucial early stages to envision and build America. Anglo-American laid the foundations of what it means to be American. It was the model to assimilate to.

    But Jews became the new ruling elites and decided to change Americanism so that everyone had to assimilate to the Jewish vision of America as a 'nation of immigrants', 'nation with special relation with Israel', 'a nation of homo marriage', 'nation of eternal white guilt', and etc. And not only Anglo-Americans but all Americans of so many different ethnicities are told they must also 'assimilate' to the Jewish vision of Americanism as the true Americanism.

    But why should the support of Zionist oppression of Palestinians be the central theme of Americanism or American foreign policy for non-Jews, especially non-whites? Also, if Jews insist on the importance of 'white guilt' as the cornerstone of new Americanism, then wouldn't non-white Americans be angry with the sight of white Jews oppressing swarthy non-white Palestinians?

    This could be why some Jews are now saying that Jews must no longer be considered as 'white'. If Jews are not white, then the Jews who are oppressing the Palestinians are not white. Since it is about non-white Jews oppressing non-white Palestinians, SJW types will care less since Western Progressivism is mostly about vilifying white people and mostly ignores non-whites oppressing non-whites. I mean SJW never cared about black-on-black oppression in Africa. They only cared about Apartheid even though white rule in South Africa was mild compared to black-on-black massacres.

    Anyway, we need to focus on the ethnicity of power. We must stop speaking of American power in general terms. Power in America is now very ethno-specific. Jews rule and control American foreign policy. It must be called Jewish-American foreign policy. And since Homos are the mini-me's of Jews, there is also the homo-American foreign policy, like the 'gay war on Russia' cuz Kremlin won't allow homo victory parades on Red Square.

    Unless we employ such specificist lingo, we will be under the impression that American foreign policy represents us all. It most certainly doesn't. It serves the ethnic interests of the ruling elites who use abstractions of idealism and high-minded principles to obfuscate what are really their narrow ethnic interests.

    “English language songs are the world standard” – true when it comes to kitsch. Eat shit, man. German poets and composers (Schubert, Schuman, Mahler, etc.) have written songs lovelier than your Peter Paul and Mary or whatever the Beatles were named.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Matra says:
    @Rifleman
    Nobody will read it Sissy Factory. Save it for your own site Andrea. Here you should get to the point.

    You are a gay male in denial with aspergers. Neither condition are the fault of the Jews.

    Comment of the week!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. RobinG says:
    @ltlee
    The empire strikes back.
    What if the bombing of MSF hospital is not an accident but meant to send a signal to MSF as well as Russia?
    MSF got 345 million USD from US public last year. It is obvious that many Americans would not like to see its hospital treating America's enemies. Hence the collateral damage to the hospital.
    To Russia: The US can bomb MSF hospital by accident, it can also shoot down Russian warplane by accident. Is Russia really prepared to ride the escalator up to a collision with the United States?

    Here is that ‘no fly zone’ you all have been clamoring for!

    israli Airforce Command Center in ‘stupor’ as Russia offers choice of turning back or be destroyed to 4 israli F-15s

    “In the night of 1 to 2 October 2015, six Russian Sukhoi SU-30 took off from SM Syrian airbase Hmimim towards Cyprus before intercepting position attack four Israeli F-15 fighters.”
    Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ee8_1443896484&comments=1#HjHWpPWl0XskKSVz.99

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ee8_1443896484&comments=1

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

    A thing about alternate-media outlets like this, wherever you will attract free-thinkers; there’ll always be some associated baggage of crazies and on-edge commenters to go with it.

    You know what all this tiresome Jew-baiting reminds me of? It’s like a teenager who just discovered much written in the Bible isn’t true or is pretty bizarre, becomes an atheist; and has to pontificate over this for hours to anyone who will listen.
    Jews have disproportionate influence relative to their numbers. We know. Get over it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Wyrd says:
    @Rifleman
    Nobody will read it Sissy Factory. Save it for your own site Andrea. Here you should get to the point.

    You are a gay male in denial with aspergers. Neither condition are the fault of the Jews.

    Go back to gibbering there’s no such thing as Cultural Marxism, you useful idiot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    So, who are these Cultural Marxists and what are they up to?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Jason says:

    Biology is more fundamental than ideology.

    Genetics are the future. Ideology and Faith the past.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Which is more important. It reminds me of the quibbles that arose in my mind whenever earnest MBA students were being required to consider one factor or another as the key to profitability. Logically it can be something which is usually of little significance if it just happens that in the circumstances it matters a great deal - like getting a small quantity of a rare earth.metal which is essential to the production of a superconducting magnet. Or achieving effective word of mouth marketing where the product or service can't be advertised... or a dozen more convincing examples. Suppose it becomes easy and cheap to engineer a better than 100 IQ as guaranteed minimum. Wow, isn't religious faith or ideology going to be important?!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Jason
    Biology is more fundamental than ideology.

    Genetics are the future. Ideology and Faith the past.

    Which is more important. It reminds me of the quibbles that arose in my mind whenever earnest MBA students were being required to consider one factor or another as the key to profitability. Logically it can be something which is usually of little significance if it just happens that in the circumstances it matters a great deal – like getting a small quantity of a rare earth.metal which is essential to the production of a superconducting magnet. Or achieving effective word of mouth marketing where the product or service can’t be advertised… or a dozen more convincing examples. Suppose it becomes easy and cheap to engineer a better than 100 IQ as guaranteed minimum. Wow, isn’t religious faith or ideology going to be important?!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Sam Shama
    Priss is female (I think), and has an eccentric charm about her writing. I think she deliberately magnifies the 'bigoted' views to get her points across, some of which in many respects do have more than a grain of truth to them. Jewish lobby influence in the U.k., while not nearly as palpable as in the U.S, nevertheless more than moves the needle. I have exchanged views with her in these threads a time or two and I've been struck by her interpretations. For what its worth, I certainly don't think she is anti-semitic at all, but recognises that any great power, if unchecked can lead to severe distortions, and in that I agree with her.

    About homosexuality, I think her objection is to their hijacking of institutions and deliberate imposition on cultures causing dilution. She might even be sympathetic to their identity as something entirely biological and unavoidable.

    Well I'd better let her speak for herself!

    Your a brave man San Shama to say of a woman writing on serious matters that “she has an eccentric charm about her writing”. In some female academic circles you would have endangered parts of you which don’t grow back. Patronising!!! I can hear the sneer and seethe. But yes, I confess to being likely to read the product of her reading and thinking without being tempted to hit the skip button.

    I wonder if you can flesh out the picture you have of Jewish influence (I.e. relevant to Israel or perhaps to multiculturalism) in the UK. It strikes me that being embarrassed by Israel’s cruder actions and saying so is not uncommon amongst UK upper and upper middle class Jews who don’t seem to have such noticeable counterparts in the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    In some female academic circles you would have endangered parts of you which don’t grow back. Patronising!!! I can hear the sneer and seethe.
     
    "Reckless" was the word applied by my anxious friend on the occasion when I narrowly escaped a similar fate, landing instead on my fundament in a manner of speaking. All things considered a happier outcome, (or so I thought a few years after my exit from academia to the real world), since the whole incident took the shape of a gathering tropical storm of females that made landfall target, my rather factual observation of 'dilettantish', the new chairwoman's approach to modern financial theory.

    Mind you that was not in Blighty, where subtlety would have prevailed, but the U.S., not to put too fine a point on it, rejoices in this strange tyranny of termagants (an active minority, I hasten to add, with an emphasis on the adjective).


    I wonder if you can flesh out the picture you have of Jewish influence (I.e. relevant to Israel or perhaps to multiculturalism) in the UK. It strikes me that being embarrassed by Israel’s cruder actions and saying so is not uncommon amongst UK upper and upper middle class Jews who don’t seem to have such noticeable counterparts in the US.
     
    British Jewry are a curious lot, monarchists deep in their souls (an unremitting sentiment from the time of The Conqueror who invited and extended his wardship to the community and its credit networks), latter day progeny of the Old Left (uncompromising zionists) turned latest Cameronites and unequivocal rejectionists of the vision of Jeremy Corbyn. I believe it was about 77%, that voted Tory in April. So one might say that the latest results are simply an explicit return home for Jews who previously sought subtler influence (regarding Israel) through the personal relationships with a Cameron, or the House of Lords members (Baroness Stowell e.g. is a sympathetic ear) and shall we say much much older relationships between certain hereditary baronies and gentry (Rothschilds, Montagu, Wandsworth and Sassoon) and the Plantagenet. Of course nothing really surpasses the cue provided by it's former colonials across the pond :-)

    But of course your are quite right when you reckon that the upper and upper-middle classes out of embarrassment (and even shock) have very openly criticised the puerile actions of the State. Ed Miliband was certainly one of the leading voices in this regard, but found no gain in it later on at the polls, as it turned out.

    [there is a rather risqué joke about Miliband. A self-described atheist, upon visiting Israel, returned home with a bit of newly minted zeal. A period of romance ensued with the community whence he promised much, and got promised even greater in return. The Gaza bombings got in the way and the bleedin' heart reverted to his old slap-the-old-bitch-Israel routine, accompanied by a convoluted "explanation" to the community, which advised him to practice mating habits in the prescribed manner (with the sheet of separation). Miliband described his compliance to the suggestion as his member(ship) being met with air. He now claims that he has found religion.]

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Michelle says:

    It’s strange that we have never invaded Saudi Arabia to depose their leader, “Westernize” them and to enforce “Women’s or human rights. Wonder why that is. Even Jimmy Carter was good buddies with Prince Bandar!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. Sam Shama says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Your a brave man San Shama to say of a woman writing on serious matters that "she has an eccentric charm about her writing". In some female academic circles you would have endangered parts of you which don't grow back. Patronising!!! I can hear the sneer and seethe. But yes, I confess to being likely to read the product of her reading and thinking without being tempted to hit the skip button.

    I wonder if you can flesh out the picture you have of Jewish influence (I.e. relevant to Israel or perhaps to multiculturalism) in the UK. It strikes me that being embarrassed by Israel's cruder actions and saying so is not uncommon amongst UK upper and upper middle class Jews who don't seem to have such noticeable counterparts in the US.

    In some female academic circles you would have endangered parts of you which don’t grow back. Patronising!!! I can hear the sneer and seethe.

    “Reckless” was the word applied by my anxious friend on the occasion when I narrowly escaped a similar fate, landing instead on my fundament in a manner of speaking. All things considered a happier outcome, (or so I thought a few years after my exit from academia to the real world), since the whole incident took the shape of a gathering tropical storm of females that made landfall target, my rather factual observation of ‘dilettantish’, the new chairwoman’s approach to modern financial theory.

    Mind you that was not in Blighty, where subtlety would have prevailed, but the U.S., not to put too fine a point on it, rejoices in this strange tyranny of termagants (an active minority, I hasten to add, with an emphasis on the adjective).

    I wonder if you can flesh out the picture you have of Jewish influence (I.e. relevant to Israel or perhaps to multiculturalism) in the UK. It strikes me that being embarrassed by Israel’s cruder actions and saying so is not uncommon amongst UK upper and upper middle class Jews who don’t seem to have such noticeable counterparts in the US.

    British Jewry are a curious lot, monarchists deep in their souls (an unremitting sentiment from the time of The Conqueror who invited and extended his wardship to the community and its credit networks), latter day progeny of the Old Left (uncompromising zionists) turned latest Cameronites and unequivocal rejectionists of the vision of Jeremy Corbyn. I believe it was about 77%, that voted Tory in April. So one might say that the latest results are simply an explicit return home for Jews who previously sought subtler influence (regarding Israel) through the personal relationships with a Cameron, or the House of Lords members (Baroness Stowell e.g. is a sympathetic ear) and shall we say much much older relationships between certain hereditary baronies and gentry (Rothschilds, Montagu, Wandsworth and Sassoon) and the Plantagenet. Of course nothing really surpasses the cue provided by it’s former colonials across the pond :-)

    But of course your are quite right when you reckon that the upper and upper-middle classes out of embarrassment (and even shock) have very openly criticised the puerile actions of the State. Ed Miliband was certainly one of the leading voices in this regard, but found no gain in it later on at the polls, as it turned out.

    [there is a rather risqué joke about Miliband. A self-described atheist, upon visiting Israel, returned home with a bit of newly minted zeal. A period of romance ensued with the community whence he promised much, and got promised even greater in return. The Gaza bombings got in the way and the bleedin' heart reverted to his old slap-the-old-bitch-Israel routine, accompanied by a convoluted "explanation" to the community, which advised him to practice mating habits in the prescribed manner (with the sheet of separation). Miliband described his compliance to the suggestion as his member(ship) being met with air. He now claims that he has found religion.]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Bill Jones
    The US has merely followed the US tradition of using alliances as tripwires to guarantee war: Belgium in 1914, Poland in 1939 are the obvious examples. There was no chance of delivering on the promise but the ensuing war was certain.

    It was of course UK.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. iffen says:
    @Wyrd
    Go back to gibbering there's no such thing as Cultural Marxism, you useful idiot.

    So, who are these Cultural Marxists and what are they up to?

    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
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?