The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Pat Buchanan ArchiveBlogview
Tribalism Marches On!
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Recently, a columnist-friend, Matt Kenney, sent me a 25-year-old newspaper with his chiding that my column had been given better play.

Both had run in The Orange County Register on June 30, 1991.

“Is there no room for new nations in the New World Order?” was my title, and the column began:

“In turning a stone face toward embattled Slovenia and Croatia, President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker have not only put America’s chips on the wrong horse. They have bet on a losing horse.

“Can the U.S. Government seriously believe that a Yugoslavia of such disparate peoples, all of whom wish greater freedom, most of whose republics wish to be free of Belgrade, is a viable nation?”

The State Department had denounced “these unilateral steps by Croatia and Slovenia” to break free: “As Secretary Baker made clear last Friday, we will neither encourage nor reward secession.”

Croatia and Slovenia are today free and members of NATO.

A month later in 1991, George H. W. Bush, in what Bill Safire dubbed his “Chicken Kiev” speech, warned that Ukraine’s desire to break free of Moscow manifested a “suicidal nationalism.”

Today, Ukraine is independent and the Bush-GOP establishment wants to send weapons to Kiev to fight pro-Russia secessionists.

As nationalism tore apart Yugoslavia and the USSR in the 1990s, and surged to propel British secession from the EU and Donald Trump’s triumph in 2016, that primal force appears on the march again.

Wrote The Wall Street Journal Monday:

“Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban barely mentions his political rivals as he campaigns for a fourth term. Instead, he is targeting the European Union and its biggest members. ‘Our fiercest opponents are not in Hungarian opposition parties,’ Mr. Orban said in a speech last week, ‘They are abroad … Berlin, Brussels.’

“In neighboring Poland,” the Journal goes on, “government rhetoric is even harsher. Politicians have one-upped each other in attacking France and Germany, arguing they are forcing multicultural liberal democracy on more traditional Poles.”

Not only in the east of Europe but also in the west, nationalism is surging. Wrote The New York Times Friday:

“The accelerating battle over Catalonia’s status hit warp speed this week. Catalan lawmakers voted to go ahead with an Oct. 1 referendum on separating from Spain. Spain’s constitutional court declared the vote suspended. And Catalan politicians said they would proceed anyway.”

Yesterday, thousands of Catalans paraded through Barcelona under a banner proclaiming “Goodbye, Spain!” It was the Catalan National Day, which commemorates the 1714 capture of Barcelona by Philip V, the first Bourbon monarch of Spain.

Spain’s wealthiest region, Catalonia believes it is being milked by Madrid for the benefit of regions that contribute far less.

The question being raised by Catalonia is one America has faced before. Do peoples in a democratic republic have a right to declare their independence, secede, and establish a new nation, as the 13 colonies did in 1776 and the Confederate States of America sought to do in 1861?

ORDER IT NOW

Though America was born of secession, the U.S. establishment since the Cold War has been far more transnationalist and globalist than a great champion of new nations. Perhaps that is because the New World Order proclaimed by Bush I in 1991 envisioned the U.S. as the benevolent global hegemon.

Another ethnonational secession may be declared even before the Catalans go to the polls Oct. 1.

The Kurdistan Regional Government has scheduled a referendum for Sept. 25 — on independence from Iraq. Should it go forward, a massive vote to secede seems certain. And Kurds are relying on U.S. support. For they have sustained many casualties and shed much blood backing us in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State.

Yet while our sentiments may cheer the cause of an independent Kurdistan, our national interests may call for caution.

For though the Kurds, 30 million in number, are probably the largest ethnic group on earth without a nation-state of their own, creating a Kurdish homeland could ignite a Middle East war the Kurds could lose as badly as did the Confederate States.

Why? Because, the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919-20 not only left millions of Kurds in Iraq, it left most of them in Turkey, Iran and Syria.

A free and independent Kurdistan carved out of Iraq could prove a magnet for the 25 million Kurds in Iran, Turkey and Syria, and a sanctuary for Kurd rebels, causing those nations to join together to annihilate the new country.

Then, there is Kirkuk, seized by the Kurds after the Iraqi army fled from an invading ISIS. The city sits on some of the richest oil deposits in Iraq.

Yesterday, Massoud Barzani, president of Iraqi Kurdistan, told the BBC that if the Kurds vote for independence and Baghdad refuses to accept it, they will forcibly resist any Iraqi attempt to retake the city.

Tribalism appears to be doing to the Bush New World Order what it did to Mikhail Gorbachev’s Soviet Union.

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

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Iraq, Kurds 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. keithhh says:

    Slobodan Milosevic was eventually previous year freed from all accusations brought upon him, and the Serbs, by Madeleine Ahlbright’s illegal NATO tribunal, the ICTY, located in the former Nazi (SS) interrogation center in the Hague.

    But it didn’t help his or indeed the losing nation, the in western MSM vilified and satanized Serbia’s cause since he was killed just when he was about to wrap up a successful defense case, by NATO doctors that “by mistake” gave him increasing doses of a drug that knocked out his medication against high blood pressure.

    No, nationalism didn’t (primarily) tore apart Yugoslavia, the newly united Germany and the US did. (no kidding!) The Germans had a dream since Nazi-times “Serbien muss sterbien” Serbs must be kept down and out at any cost and neo-liberal EU (Germany) wouldn’t look too well beside a successful social democratic union and a major ally and friend of Russia at that. Here’s what really happened:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/milosevic-test-your-media/2110

    “Did the war begin in 1991 with the secessions of Slovenia and Croatia?

    NO. In 1979, the BND (German CIA) sent a team of secret agents to Zagreb. Mission: to support Franjo Tudjman, a racist who actively promoted ethnic hatred and did all he could toward the break-up of Yugoslavia. Germany supported and financed this Croatian Le Pen, and sent him arms before the war.

    To what end? Berlin never acknowledged the existence of the unified Yugoslav state which had courageously resisted German aggression in the two world wars. By once more breaking Yugoslavia into easily dominated mini-states, Germany sought to control the Balkans. An economic zone it could annex in order to remove it from local authority, to export German products to it, and to dominate it as a market. And a strategic route toward the oil and gas of the Middle East and the Caucasus. In 1992, the Bavarian Interior Minister declared: “Helmut Kohl has succeeded where neither Emperor Guillaume nor Hitler could.” (see the parallel maps ‘Yugoslavia in 1941–in 1991′, Liars’ Poker, pp 68-69)”

    Read More
    • Replies: @yeah
    Indeed, Germany has been playing the same game since the dawn of the twentieth century, namely, to maneuver and manipulate politics and geopolitical actions such that the Balkans are kept fragmented, weak, and an easy market for German industry. German hands were behind the chain of events that ended with the breakup of Yugoslavia, and German hands have also been behind fostering Ukraine's chaos, coup, and virulent anti-Russian nationalism. It is easy for Germany to get away with it because it is pampered and wooed by both US and Russia. In real terms, if we ignore outward appearances, it sits on the fence, swaying a little this way and then a little that way to extract advantages in turns from America and Russia. The US, because of its greater power and overall leverage, has managed to restrain it somewhat, but that keeps changing from one President to another. The Russians have no leverage; indeed they deal with Germany with their softest kid gloves and fawning smiles on because they need German industry, its technology, and its money.

    Trump, whether you love him or hate him, had the wits and guts to call Germany by its proper name: A sponger on American military largesse, paying nothing but enjoying great power, building up its economic clout at American expense. But any mention of Trump quickly brings an end to any rational or coherent talk, so let us leave it here. In any case, the main point has been made.
    , @KenH
    Yugoslavia was breaking up anyway owing to its ethnic and religious diversity and it had nothing to do with German machinations. U.S. general of Jewish descent Wesley Clark let the cat out of the bag on U.S. efforts to force multi-ethnic states on the the former Yugoslavia and throughout Europe and blame Milosevic and the Serbs for the unrest in Yugoslavia.

    "there is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That's a 19th century idea, and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multiethnic states."
    General Wesley Clark circa 1999
    http://takimag.com/article/multiculturalism_when_will_the_sleeper_wake_john_derbyshire/print#axzz4sVcnuA7U

    Racially/ethnically pure white nations are contrary to the interests of Jewish globalism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pbuchanan/tribalism-marches-on/#comment-2002867
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Yeah, we kind of got off message with Kosovo … wonder if Bondsteel was worth it.

    Read More
  3. Renoman says:

    Everybody everywhere hates the Government. They are sick to death of MOM telling them what to think, tired of having their money stolen and not crazy about their Countries being filled with strangers. All seems pretty logical when you look at it.

    Read More
  4. Randal says:

    Do peoples in a democratic republic have a right to declare their independence, secede, and establish a new nation, as the 13 colonies did in 1776 and the Confederate States of America sought to do in 1861?

    Though America was born of secession

    An unusually informed and honest take on the war to suppress southern secession, for an American, in my experience. Then again, Buchanan is an unusually informed and honest man (which is not to say that I agree with everything he says).

    A free and independent Kurdistan carved out of Iraq could prove a magnet for the 25 million Kurds in Iran, Turkey and Syria, and a sanctuary for Kurd rebels, causing those nations to join together to annihilate the new country.

    It’s quite possible there could be a war between the Iraqi government, backed by Iran, and the secessionist Kurds. When and if that happens the usual suspects in the US sphere will loudly proclaim it as all Iran’s fault and call for aggressive intervention.

    It’s quite possible, once the mopping up of the jihadists in Syria has been concluded, that there will be a confrontation of the US-backed Kurds in that country, and if the Kurds are emboldened to avoid reasonable compromise that accepts Damascus’s rule (albeit with significant practical autonomy), then there could be a war there as well, in which Turkey would be aligned with Damascus and the aforementioned usual suspects in the US sphere would again be crying foul and insisting on aggressive military intervention that will follow.

    None of it might happen – the parties involved might draw back from the cliff edges. But let’s not be surprised if it does, and let’s be prepared for all the usual dishonest propaganda and manipulation of opinion to promote intervention.

    Yet while our sentiments may cheer the cause of an independent Kurdistan, our national interests may call for caution.

    Clearly, but Israeli national interests call for US military aggression. Whose interests will prevail?

    Expect lots of appeals on behalf of “the plucky little Kurds” and insistence that any wars provoked by their determination to push for formal independence (if it happens) are entirely the fault of the parties resisting it, and lots of stupid but manipulative “new Hitler” nonsense and accusations that those opposing the latest interventionist stupidity are “appeasing” whoever said new Hitler happens to be, and are “stooges” for him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Though America was born of secession--An unusually informed and honest take on the war to suppress southern secession, for an American, in my experience. Then again, Buchanan is an unusually informed and honest man (which is not to say that I agree with everything he says)."

    In a word, no.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/mccarthy/was-the-american-revolution-secessionist
  5. yeah says:
    @keithhh
    Slobodan Milosevic was eventually previous year freed from all accusations brought upon him, and the Serbs, by Madeleine Ahlbright's illegal NATO tribunal, the ICTY, located in the former Nazi (SS) interrogation center in the Hague.

    But it didn't help his or indeed the losing nation, the in western MSM vilified and satanized Serbia's cause since he was killed just when he was about to wrap up a successful defense case, by NATO doctors that "by mistake" gave him increasing doses of a drug that knocked out his medication against high blood pressure.

    No, nationalism didn't (primarily) tore apart Yugoslavia, the newly united Germany and the US did. (no kidding!) The Germans had a dream since Nazi-times "Serbien muss sterbien" Serbs must be kept down and out at any cost and neo-liberal EU (Germany) wouldn't look too well beside a successful social democratic union and a major ally and friend of Russia at that. Here's what really happened:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/milosevic-test-your-media/2110

    "Did the war begin in 1991 with the secessions of Slovenia and Croatia?

    NO. In 1979, the BND (German CIA) sent a team of secret agents to Zagreb. Mission: to support Franjo Tudjman, a racist who actively promoted ethnic hatred and did all he could toward the break-up of Yugoslavia. Germany supported and financed this Croatian Le Pen, and sent him arms before the war.

    To what end? Berlin never acknowledged the existence of the unified Yugoslav state which had courageously resisted German aggression in the two world wars. By once more breaking Yugoslavia into easily dominated mini-states, Germany sought to control the Balkans. An economic zone it could annex in order to remove it from local authority, to export German products to it, and to dominate it as a market. And a strategic route toward the oil and gas of the Middle East and the Caucasus. In 1992, the Bavarian Interior Minister declared: “Helmut Kohl has succeeded where neither Emperor Guillaume nor Hitler could.” (see the parallel maps ‘Yugoslavia in 1941–in 1991′, Liars’ Poker, pp 68-69)"

    Indeed, Germany has been playing the same game since the dawn of the twentieth century, namely, to maneuver and manipulate politics and geopolitical actions such that the Balkans are kept fragmented, weak, and an easy market for German industry. German hands were behind the chain of events that ended with the breakup of Yugoslavia, and German hands have also been behind fostering Ukraine’s chaos, coup, and virulent anti-Russian nationalism. It is easy for Germany to get away with it because it is pampered and wooed by both US and Russia. In real terms, if we ignore outward appearances, it sits on the fence, swaying a little this way and then a little that way to extract advantages in turns from America and Russia. The US, because of its greater power and overall leverage, has managed to restrain it somewhat, but that keeps changing from one President to another. The Russians have no leverage; indeed they deal with Germany with their softest kid gloves and fawning smiles on because they need German industry, its technology, and its money.

    Trump, whether you love him or hate him, had the wits and guts to call Germany by its proper name: A sponger on American military largesse, paying nothing but enjoying great power, building up its economic clout at American expense. But any mention of Trump quickly brings an end to any rational or coherent talk, so let us leave it here. In any case, the main point has been made.

    Read More
  6. Since the War if Northern Aggression invaded the South to prevent their cash cow from leaving the US, Amerika has resisted supporting secession anywhere. It did not oppose the breakup of the USSR, which was a type of ethnic secession, but only to become the unopposed dominant power in the world. This was something the (((elite))) needed to enforce their dominion over the majority of the world. Secession is, as Buchanan pointed out, the driving force behind the creation of this country and it is outlined quite well in the Declaration of Independence.

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident…….That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    The South believed that the contract they entered into with the North (The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution) was voluntary and, therefore, they could voluntarily leave. As many have tried to point out, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. And since the Civil War, the North has hidden behind the self-righteous facade of pretending they fought the South to “free the slaves”. Everyone with any knowledge of history and an IQ above room temperature sees this for the lie it is. The North and Lincoln could have cared less about black slaves. You can argue that slavery is wrong and therefore the results of the invasion of the South are justified. If the North really felt so strongly about slavery, all they had to do was pay the South for their loss of property, which is what slaves were.

    The question was and remains, do groups of people have the right to determine their own destiny or are we merely cattle that serve (((evil men)))? Somehow, the self-righteous cause of “saving the Union” has taken precedent over the rights of men to separate from what they perceive as a rigged game that does not benefit them at all. A non-existent corporate entity has become more important than actual citizens. And for those of you that think this is all well and good, ask yourself if the government we have now is something the Founders would have wanted or that Northern patsies would have died for if they could see what this nation has become.

    I support the right of all peoples to live under the government of their own choice. May both Kurdistan and California succeed at seceding. Centralization of power over a large and multi-ethnic empire is always doomed to fail. The way to prevent this is to remain relatively local and only have one ethnicity as your citizens. Biology trumps ideology and people have always preferred to associate with their own kind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lawrence Fitton
    the primal need to compete for resources bands people together; along with the natural instinct to judge those of difference simply to determine if they pose a threat to survival.
    , @Joe Levantine
    Great post.
    "A non-existent corporate entity has become more important than actual citizens"
    See Jordan Maxwell's ' the United States is a corporation."
    The late Jim Marrs disclosed on Renseradio.com that when Linclon's aides asked him why he would not let the Southern states secede, his answer was " and who is going to pay the export taxes" meaning the big agricultural exports of the agrarian south. So they claimed that the war was about freeing slaves, an equivalent to Iraq's " weapons of mass destruction."
    The only refuge for a true democracy is a highly decentralized state where people can decide what is good for them and their identity without the oppression of a centre that escapes all forms of voters' accountability the way of the U S Federal Government. Add to this form of governance a total rebuke of imperialistic pursuits and the world will be a better place.
  7. bjondo says:

    israel demands u.s. support for independent kurds in iraq and syria eventually iran. keeps the pot boiling for a very long time benefiting israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Buchanan always palys it DUMB when it comes to question of ziofacists and terrorist USG to protect its own interests to help his own pockets.

    He pretends that know shit about the "greater Israel" where terrorist USG and jewish neocons are in it to use dumb presidents for the interest of "greater israel" where demands "regime change" and partition of the regional states to erect another terrorist state like Israel, a second Isreal, where they take this wish into their graves including Buchanan. If you have not understood Oded Yinon plan and are AFRAID to talk about it, so YOU don't mislead the dumb citizens, then you should not be here.

    The taitor kurds who have been in the pocket of ziofascists and terrorist USG fighting for the implementation of the enemy geopolitical plan, then should be executed as TRAITORS and their master must be force out like a rotten rats.
  8. Someone want to comment on the relative similarities re Slovenia being “milked” by Belgrade vs Catalonia getting “milked’ by Madrid?

    Read More
  9. Tiny Duck says:

    People of Color are the future

    Your daughters will bear Children of Color

    the borders will be open

    Islam will be the religion of the future

    Read Leonard Pitts

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous White Male
    Tiny Dick is back! Leonard Pitts is just a negro with a perpetual chip on his soldier, moaning about the White devil and trying to scam the system. If you consider him insightful or intelligent, you are either a negro or stupid. Or both. Wait. That's redundant.
    , @fish

    What is that…..velvet? Oh Tynisha…..dats beautiful!


    -Leonard Pitts
     

  10. @Tiny Duck
    People of Color are the future

    Your daughters will bear Children of Color

    the borders will be open

    Islam will be the religion of the future

    Read Leonard Pitts

    Tiny Dick is back! Leonard Pitts is just a negro with a perpetual chip on his soldier, moaning about the White devil and trying to scam the system. If you consider him insightful or intelligent, you are either a negro or stupid. Or both. Wait. That’s redundant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tiny Duck
    Leonard Pitts is a Pulitzer prize winning father of six

    What about his writings do you find objectionable? Name one

    Im waiting....
  11. Tiny Duck says:
    @Anonymous White Male
    Tiny Dick is back! Leonard Pitts is just a negro with a perpetual chip on his soldier, moaning about the White devil and trying to scam the system. If you consider him insightful or intelligent, you are either a negro or stupid. Or both. Wait. That's redundant.

    Leonard Pitts is a Pulitzer prize winning father of six

    What about his writings do you find objectionable? Name one

    Im waiting….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous White Male
    Yeah, and the gay mulatto was given a Nobel Peace Prize, since he couldn’t earn any on his own. If you don’t know the difference between affirmative action awards and earning an award, well, you obviously don’t! I read a few Pitts columns a few decades ago in the Dallas Morning News, since he was the token black on the editorial page. Didn’t take long to see he was just another whining negro that could only write about how da man be keepin’ da bruthas down. Let’s look at some of his more recent columns. Oh, by the way, this is from Arcamax with the title “From the Left” above the token’s picture.

    “Nothing to see here, say climate deniers” – In addition to his Pulitzer Prize, Pitts is also a world renowned authority on climate models and the elements that produce climate. NOT! Pitts is just another liberal asswipe that worships at the altar of the First Church of Climatology. Calling someone a “climate denier” (by the way, who in world denies climate) is the equivalent of using the word “racist”. It is just an attempt to denigrate anyone that disagrees with you. Here’s a news flash: the majority of White people don’t care about being called racist anymore, now that the left has used it obsessively for decades.

    “America, a land of liberty and justice for some” – Before I read this, I’m going to go out on a limb here and declare that this editorial is about some negro that dindu nuffin and was lynched by institutionalized White racism. Lawd, have mercy! Iz mus’ be a prophet. Has a negro “journalist”, aside from Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, ever written anything that doesn’t contain these clichés?

    “Charlottesville didn’t spring from nowhere” – Here we have a Pulitzer Prize journalist using a double negative. Of course, double negatives are juz Whites folks imposing day control over da blak man. Ebonics anyone? Let me do my Karnak the Magnificent routine and declare this is about inherent racism due to White privilege. Hey, two for two! You recognize this from the very first sentences, “It is important to look beyond the riot. Yes, last week's violent demonstration by white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia, culminating in the death of 32-year-old Heather Heyer, made for a carnival of obscenity as sickening as it was riveting. But the thing is, it did not spring from nowhere.” This absolves this “brilliant” token from looking into where the mayor and police of Charlottesvile came from in initiating this false flag operation.

    “Sadly, America is not better than this” – I know I’m tempting fate, but I’m going to predict that this column is about “racism”. What do you know! Right again! Can negroes produce any type of literature that doesn’t hinge on excuses for their race’s millennia of failure? Even failures before the White man sucked all dey knowledge from dey brains?

    No, Pitts is a stereotype. He serves the same function as black actors being substituted for White historical figures. Cuz blak chilluns needs dem role models. By the way, are you a negro, Tiny, or just a liberal trying to interpret the world from your mother’s basement?
    , @RadicalCenter
    And I'm waiting for you to learn how to use apostrophes and hyphens, genius. Product of government schools, no doubt, which is especially appropriate for a government employee, eh?
  12. fish says:
    @Tiny Duck
    People of Color are the future

    Your daughters will bear Children of Color

    the borders will be open

    Islam will be the religion of the future

    Read Leonard Pitts

    What is that…..velvet? Oh Tynisha…..dats beautiful!

    -Leonard Pitts

    Read More
  13. KenH says:
    @keithhh
    Slobodan Milosevic was eventually previous year freed from all accusations brought upon him, and the Serbs, by Madeleine Ahlbright's illegal NATO tribunal, the ICTY, located in the former Nazi (SS) interrogation center in the Hague.

    But it didn't help his or indeed the losing nation, the in western MSM vilified and satanized Serbia's cause since he was killed just when he was about to wrap up a successful defense case, by NATO doctors that "by mistake" gave him increasing doses of a drug that knocked out his medication against high blood pressure.

    No, nationalism didn't (primarily) tore apart Yugoslavia, the newly united Germany and the US did. (no kidding!) The Germans had a dream since Nazi-times "Serbien muss sterbien" Serbs must be kept down and out at any cost and neo-liberal EU (Germany) wouldn't look too well beside a successful social democratic union and a major ally and friend of Russia at that. Here's what really happened:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/milosevic-test-your-media/2110

    "Did the war begin in 1991 with the secessions of Slovenia and Croatia?

    NO. In 1979, the BND (German CIA) sent a team of secret agents to Zagreb. Mission: to support Franjo Tudjman, a racist who actively promoted ethnic hatred and did all he could toward the break-up of Yugoslavia. Germany supported and financed this Croatian Le Pen, and sent him arms before the war.

    To what end? Berlin never acknowledged the existence of the unified Yugoslav state which had courageously resisted German aggression in the two world wars. By once more breaking Yugoslavia into easily dominated mini-states, Germany sought to control the Balkans. An economic zone it could annex in order to remove it from local authority, to export German products to it, and to dominate it as a market. And a strategic route toward the oil and gas of the Middle East and the Caucasus. In 1992, the Bavarian Interior Minister declared: “Helmut Kohl has succeeded where neither Emperor Guillaume nor Hitler could.” (see the parallel maps ‘Yugoslavia in 1941–in 1991′, Liars’ Poker, pp 68-69)"

    Yugoslavia was breaking up anyway owing to its ethnic and religious diversity and it had nothing to do with German machinations. U.S. general of Jewish descent Wesley Clark let the cat out of the bag on U.S. efforts to force multi-ethnic states on the the former Yugoslavia and throughout Europe and blame Milosevic and the Serbs for the unrest in Yugoslavia.

    “there is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea, and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multiethnic states.”
    General Wesley Clark circa 1999

    http://takimag.com/article/multiculturalism_when_will_the_sleeper_wake_john_derbyshire/print#axzz4sVcnuA7U

    Racially/ethnically pure white nations are contrary to the interests of Jewish globalism.

    Read More
  14. tribalism worked and works so well for the jews, you can’t blame others for copying the tactic.

    Read More
  15. @Tiny Duck
    Leonard Pitts is a Pulitzer prize winning father of six

    What about his writings do you find objectionable? Name one

    Im waiting....

    Yeah, and the gay mulatto was given a Nobel Peace Prize, since he couldn’t earn any on his own. If you don’t know the difference between affirmative action awards and earning an award, well, you obviously don’t! I read a few Pitts columns a few decades ago in the Dallas Morning News, since he was the token black on the editorial page. Didn’t take long to see he was just another whining negro that could only write about how da man be keepin’ da bruthas down. Let’s look at some of his more recent columns. Oh, by the way, this is from Arcamax with the title “From the Left” above the token’s picture.

    “Nothing to see here, say climate deniers” – In addition to his Pulitzer Prize, Pitts is also a world renowned authority on climate models and the elements that produce climate. NOT! Pitts is just another liberal asswipe that worships at the altar of the First Church of Climatology. Calling someone a “climate denier” (by the way, who in world denies climate) is the equivalent of using the word “racist”. It is just an attempt to denigrate anyone that disagrees with you. Here’s a news flash: the majority of White people don’t care about being called racist anymore, now that the left has used it obsessively for decades.

    “America, a land of liberty and justice for some” – Before I read this, I’m going to go out on a limb here and declare that this editorial is about some negro that dindu nuffin and was lynched by institutionalized White racism. Lawd, have mercy! Iz mus’ be a prophet. Has a negro “journalist”, aside from Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, ever written anything that doesn’t contain these clichés?

    “Charlottesville didn’t spring from nowhere” – Here we have a Pulitzer Prize journalist using a double negative. Of course, double negatives are juz Whites folks imposing day control over da blak man. Ebonics anyone? Let me do my Karnak the Magnificent routine and declare this is about inherent racism due to White privilege. Hey, two for two! You recognize this from the very first sentences, “It is important to look beyond the riot. Yes, last week’s violent demonstration by white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia, culminating in the death of 32-year-old Heather Heyer, made for a carnival of obscenity as sickening as it was riveting. But the thing is, it did not spring from nowhere.” This absolves this “brilliant” token from looking into where the mayor and police of Charlottesvile came from in initiating this false flag operation.

    “Sadly, America is not better than this” – I know I’m tempting fate, but I’m going to predict that this column is about “racism”. What do you know! Right again! Can negroes produce any type of literature that doesn’t hinge on excuses for their race’s millennia of failure? Even failures before the White man sucked all dey knowledge from dey brains?

    No, Pitts is a stereotype. He serves the same function as black actors being substituted for White historical figures. Cuz blak chilluns needs dem role models. By the way, are you a negro, Tiny, or just a liberal trying to interpret the world from your mother’s basement?

    Read More
  16. @Anonymous White Male
    Since the War if Northern Aggression invaded the South to prevent their cash cow from leaving the US, Amerika has resisted supporting secession anywhere. It did not oppose the breakup of the USSR, which was a type of ethnic secession, but only to become the unopposed dominant power in the world. This was something the (((elite))) needed to enforce their dominion over the majority of the world. Secession is, as Buchanan pointed out, the driving force behind the creation of this country and it is outlined quite well in the Declaration of Independence.

    "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident.......That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

    The South believed that the contract they entered into with the North (The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution) was voluntary and, therefore, they could voluntarily leave. As many have tried to point out, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. And since the Civil War, the North has hidden behind the self-righteous facade of pretending they fought the South to "free the slaves". Everyone with any knowledge of history and an IQ above room temperature sees this for the lie it is. The North and Lincoln could have cared less about black slaves. You can argue that slavery is wrong and therefore the results of the invasion of the South are justified. If the North really felt so strongly about slavery, all they had to do was pay the South for their loss of property, which is what slaves were.

    The question was and remains, do groups of people have the right to determine their own destiny or are we merely cattle that serve (((evil men)))? Somehow, the self-righteous cause of "saving the Union" has taken precedent over the rights of men to separate from what they perceive as a rigged game that does not benefit them at all. A non-existent corporate entity has become more important than actual citizens. And for those of you that think this is all well and good, ask yourself if the government we have now is something the Founders would have wanted or that Northern patsies would have died for if they could see what this nation has become.

    I support the right of all peoples to live under the government of their own choice. May both Kurdistan and California succeed at seceding. Centralization of power over a large and multi-ethnic empire is always doomed to fail. The way to prevent this is to remain relatively local and only have one ethnicity as your citizens. Biology trumps ideology and people have always preferred to associate with their own kind.

    the primal need to compete for resources bands people together; along with the natural instinct to judge those of difference simply to determine if they pose a threat to survival.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous White Male
    So, are you saying negroes are a threat to survival? Cause I sure consider them one.
  17. @Lawrence Fitton
    the primal need to compete for resources bands people together; along with the natural instinct to judge those of difference simply to determine if they pose a threat to survival.

    So, are you saying negroes are a threat to survival? Cause I sure consider them one.

    Read More
  18. “In neighboring Poland,” the Journal goes on, “government rhetoric is even harsher. Politicians have one-upped each other in attacking France and Germany, arguing they are forcing multicultural liberal democracy on more traditional Poles.”

    That explains why I quit reading that rag (WSJ) about the time it went up to $0.75 (or was it a buck?). Harsh rhetoric indeed, to call out other countries for instigating an invasion across your borders. Too much damn rhetoric, I tells ya!

    Oh, interesting article, Mr. Buchanan, again.

    Read More
  19. Corvinus says:
    @Randal

    Do peoples in a democratic republic have a right to declare their independence, secede, and establish a new nation, as the 13 colonies did in 1776 and the Confederate States of America sought to do in 1861?

    Though America was born of secession
     
    An unusually informed and honest take on the war to suppress southern secession, for an American, in my experience. Then again, Buchanan is an unusually informed and honest man (which is not to say that I agree with everything he says).

    A free and independent Kurdistan carved out of Iraq could prove a magnet for the 25 million Kurds in Iran, Turkey and Syria, and a sanctuary for Kurd rebels, causing those nations to join together to annihilate the new country.
     
    It's quite possible there could be a war between the Iraqi government, backed by Iran, and the secessionist Kurds. When and if that happens the usual suspects in the US sphere will loudly proclaim it as all Iran's fault and call for aggressive intervention.

    It's quite possible, once the mopping up of the jihadists in Syria has been concluded, that there will be a confrontation of the US-backed Kurds in that country, and if the Kurds are emboldened to avoid reasonable compromise that accepts Damascus's rule (albeit with significant practical autonomy), then there could be a war there as well, in which Turkey would be aligned with Damascus and the aforementioned usual suspects in the US sphere would again be crying foul and insisting on aggressive military intervention that will follow.

    None of it might happen - the parties involved might draw back from the cliff edges. But let's not be surprised if it does, and let's be prepared for all the usual dishonest propaganda and manipulation of opinion to promote intervention.

    Yet while our sentiments may cheer the cause of an independent Kurdistan, our national interests may call for caution.
     
    Clearly, but Israeli national interests call for US military aggression. Whose interests will prevail?

    Expect lots of appeals on behalf of "the plucky little Kurds" and insistence that any wars provoked by their determination to push for formal independence (if it happens) are entirely the fault of the parties resisting it, and lots of stupid but manipulative "new Hitler" nonsense and accusations that those opposing the latest interventionist stupidity are "appeasing" whoever said new Hitler happens to be, and are "stooges" for him.

    “Though America was born of secession–An unusually informed and honest take on the war to suppress southern secession, for an American, in my experience. Then again, Buchanan is an unusually informed and honest man (which is not to say that I agree with everything he says).”

    In a word, no.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/mccarthy/was-the-american-revolution-secessionist

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    As I've observed is quite often the case for you, you adduce linked material which does not support your own case. At least in this case McCarthy's essay was worth reading in its own right.

    As far as this issue is concerned, the closest McCarthy comes to endorsing the view you pretend he does is when he writes (emphasis added):

    The American Revolution itself is a very complicated thing and doesn’t in all senses belong in the category of secession.
     
    That's not an unreasonable observation, but the simple common sense fact remains that the American secession from British rule most certainly was a case of secession.
  20. @Tiny Duck
    Leonard Pitts is a Pulitzer prize winning father of six

    What about his writings do you find objectionable? Name one

    Im waiting....

    And I’m waiting for you to learn how to use apostrophes and hyphens, genius. Product of government schools, no doubt, which is especially appropriate for a government employee, eh?

    Read More
  21. ” our national interests may call for caution.”

    I am sick and tired about this “national interest” crap.
    I am interested in the individual welfare of 330 million individuals not some fantasy bullshit dreamed up by the political filth in DC.

    Read More
  22. KenH says:

    Tribalism marches on in America, too, thanks to the 1965 immigration and nationality act and amnesties big, small and yet to be. Wonder why this is missing from Pat’s commentary?

    But white tribalism is demonized while the tribalism of every other group is lauded and celebrated.

    Read More
  23. Thirdeye says:

    Ukrainian nationalism was and is suicidal. They lost the underpinnings of their economy in trying to turn to the west and nobody is going to bail them out. Ookraeena is a carcass waiting to be picked.

    Read More
  24. @Anonymous White Male
    Since the War if Northern Aggression invaded the South to prevent their cash cow from leaving the US, Amerika has resisted supporting secession anywhere. It did not oppose the breakup of the USSR, which was a type of ethnic secession, but only to become the unopposed dominant power in the world. This was something the (((elite))) needed to enforce their dominion over the majority of the world. Secession is, as Buchanan pointed out, the driving force behind the creation of this country and it is outlined quite well in the Declaration of Independence.

    "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident.......That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

    The South believed that the contract they entered into with the North (The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution) was voluntary and, therefore, they could voluntarily leave. As many have tried to point out, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. And since the Civil War, the North has hidden behind the self-righteous facade of pretending they fought the South to "free the slaves". Everyone with any knowledge of history and an IQ above room temperature sees this for the lie it is. The North and Lincoln could have cared less about black slaves. You can argue that slavery is wrong and therefore the results of the invasion of the South are justified. If the North really felt so strongly about slavery, all they had to do was pay the South for their loss of property, which is what slaves were.

    The question was and remains, do groups of people have the right to determine their own destiny or are we merely cattle that serve (((evil men)))? Somehow, the self-righteous cause of "saving the Union" has taken precedent over the rights of men to separate from what they perceive as a rigged game that does not benefit them at all. A non-existent corporate entity has become more important than actual citizens. And for those of you that think this is all well and good, ask yourself if the government we have now is something the Founders would have wanted or that Northern patsies would have died for if they could see what this nation has become.

    I support the right of all peoples to live under the government of their own choice. May both Kurdistan and California succeed at seceding. Centralization of power over a large and multi-ethnic empire is always doomed to fail. The way to prevent this is to remain relatively local and only have one ethnicity as your citizens. Biology trumps ideology and people have always preferred to associate with their own kind.

    Great post.
    “A non-existent corporate entity has become more important than actual citizens”
    See Jordan Maxwell’s ‘ the United States is a corporation.”
    The late Jim Marrs disclosed on Renseradio.com that when Linclon’s aides asked him why he would not let the Southern states secede, his answer was ” and who is going to pay the export taxes” meaning the big agricultural exports of the agrarian south. So they claimed that the war was about freeing slaves, an equivalent to Iraq’s ” weapons of mass destruction.”
    The only refuge for a true democracy is a highly decentralized state where people can decide what is good for them and their identity without the oppression of a centre that escapes all forms of voters’ accountability the way of the U S Federal Government. Add to this form of governance a total rebuke of imperialistic pursuits and the world will be a better place.

    Read More
  25. Randal says:
    @Corvinus
    "Though America was born of secession--An unusually informed and honest take on the war to suppress southern secession, for an American, in my experience. Then again, Buchanan is an unusually informed and honest man (which is not to say that I agree with everything he says)."

    In a word, no.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/mccarthy/was-the-american-revolution-secessionist

    As I’ve observed is quite often the case for you, you adduce linked material which does not support your own case. At least in this case McCarthy’s essay was worth reading in its own right.

    As far as this issue is concerned, the closest McCarthy comes to endorsing the view you pretend he does is when he writes (emphasis added):

    The American Revolution itself is a very complicated thing and doesn’t in all senses belong in the category of secession.

    That’s not an unreasonable observation, but the simple common sense fact remains that the American secession from British rule most certainly was a case of secession.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "As I’ve observed is quite often the case for you,, you adduce linked material which does not support your own case."

    First, in what other alleged instances?

    Second, if you are going to make this claim, then you need to state exactly how and why the author's position "does not support my case".

    "That’s not an unreasonable observation, but the simple common sense fact remains that the American secession from British rule most certainly was a case of secession."

    You quote the author directly, which contradicts your position. The Thirteen Colonies were not equal partners, as they formed as a result of imperial intentions. It legality arose squarely by way of royal charter or Parliamentary action. Moreover, the language of the Declaration of Independence refers to the individuals of the Thirteen Colonies whose rights were violated, not the Thirteen Colonies in and of itself. That is, the social contract between people and the government, rather than between member states, became untenable. The American colonists were part of an empire--they did not legally create it. In addition, a number of the Founding Fathers believed they were committing an act of treason by breaking away from the empire.
  26. Corvinus says:
    @Randal
    As I've observed is quite often the case for you, you adduce linked material which does not support your own case. At least in this case McCarthy's essay was worth reading in its own right.

    As far as this issue is concerned, the closest McCarthy comes to endorsing the view you pretend he does is when he writes (emphasis added):

    The American Revolution itself is a very complicated thing and doesn’t in all senses belong in the category of secession.
     
    That's not an unreasonable observation, but the simple common sense fact remains that the American secession from British rule most certainly was a case of secession.

    “As I’ve observed is quite often the case for you,, you adduce linked material which does not support your own case.”

    First, in what other alleged instances?

    Second, if you are going to make this claim, then you need to state exactly how and why the author’s position “does not support my case”.

    “That’s not an unreasonable observation, but the simple common sense fact remains that the American secession from British rule most certainly was a case of secession.”

    You quote the author directly, which contradicts your position. The Thirteen Colonies were not equal partners, as they formed as a result of imperial intentions. It legality arose squarely by way of royal charter or Parliamentary action. Moreover, the language of the Declaration of Independence refers to the individuals of the Thirteen Colonies whose rights were violated, not the Thirteen Colonies in and of itself. That is, the social contract between people and the government, rather than between member states, became untenable. The American colonists were part of an empire–they did not legally create it. In addition, a number of the Founding Fathers believed they were committing an act of treason by breaking away from the empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    First, in what other alleged instances?
     
    LOL! Nice try. No, I'm not going to waste time digging through all your old posts to find examples.

    It's my opinion formed from observing such actions on your part in the past. If readers find my personal observation unconvincing, I don't care.

    Second, if you are going to make this claim, then you need to state exactly how and why the author’s position “does not support my case”.
     
    I have done so, at least sufficiently for the minimally intelligent.

    The caveat is that I chose to interpret your very indeterminate response ("no") in the most obvious way, as arguing that the American secession from British rule was not in fact secession. You might have intended it in another way, of course, though it's difficult to see any intended meaning that is supported by the article you linked to.

    You quote the author directly, which contradicts your position.
     
    No, it obviously does not. Read it again, because I've not had the impression you are really so intellectually limited as not to be able to grasp the point.

    The Thirteen Colonies were not equal partners, as they formed as a result of imperial intentions. It legality arose squarely by way of royal charter or Parliamentary action. Moreover, the language of the Declaration of Independence refers to the individuals of the Thirteen Colonies whose rights were violated, not the Thirteen Colonies in and of itself. That is, the social contract between people and the government, rather than between member states, became untenable. The American colonists were part of an empire–they did not legally create it. In addition, a number of the Founding Fathers believed they were committing an act of treason by breaking away from the empire.
     
    This pile of obfuscatory verbiage appears to be wholly unrelated to the issue of whether or not the American secession from British rule was or was not an act of secession.
  27. Randal says:
    @Corvinus
    "As I’ve observed is quite often the case for you,, you adduce linked material which does not support your own case."

    First, in what other alleged instances?

    Second, if you are going to make this claim, then you need to state exactly how and why the author's position "does not support my case".

    "That’s not an unreasonable observation, but the simple common sense fact remains that the American secession from British rule most certainly was a case of secession."

    You quote the author directly, which contradicts your position. The Thirteen Colonies were not equal partners, as they formed as a result of imperial intentions. It legality arose squarely by way of royal charter or Parliamentary action. Moreover, the language of the Declaration of Independence refers to the individuals of the Thirteen Colonies whose rights were violated, not the Thirteen Colonies in and of itself. That is, the social contract between people and the government, rather than between member states, became untenable. The American colonists were part of an empire--they did not legally create it. In addition, a number of the Founding Fathers believed they were committing an act of treason by breaking away from the empire.

    First, in what other alleged instances?

    LOL! Nice try. No, I’m not going to waste time digging through all your old posts to find examples.

    It’s my opinion formed from observing such actions on your part in the past. If readers find my personal observation unconvincing, I don’t care.

    Second, if you are going to make this claim, then you need to state exactly how and why the author’s position “does not support my case”.

    I have done so, at least sufficiently for the minimally intelligent.

    The caveat is that I chose to interpret your very indeterminate response (“no”) in the most obvious way, as arguing that the American secession from British rule was not in fact secession. You might have intended it in another way, of course, though it’s difficult to see any intended meaning that is supported by the article you linked to.

    You quote the author directly, which contradicts your position.

    No, it obviously does not. Read it again, because I’ve not had the impression you are really so intellectually limited as not to be able to grasp the point.

    The Thirteen Colonies were not equal partners, as they formed as a result of imperial intentions. It legality arose squarely by way of royal charter or Parliamentary action. Moreover, the language of the Declaration of Independence refers to the individuals of the Thirteen Colonies whose rights were violated, not the Thirteen Colonies in and of itself. That is, the social contract between people and the government, rather than between member states, became untenable. The American colonists were part of an empire–they did not legally create it. In addition, a number of the Founding Fathers believed they were committing an act of treason by breaking away from the empire.

    This pile of obfuscatory verbiage appears to be wholly unrelated to the issue of whether or not the American secession from British rule was or was not an act of secession.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "LOL! Nice try. No, I’m not going to waste time digging through all your old posts to find examples."

    You made a claim. You were called upon to back it up. Now you're acting like a typical SJW when confronted by the opposition to articulate a position.

    "It’s my opinion formed from observing such actions on your part in the past. If readers find my personal observation unconvincing, I don’t care."

    Opinions are not equal in weight. Clearly you are making a statement without evidence to back it up. You might as well be saying that donkeys are not called asses.

    "I have done so, at least sufficiently for the minimally intelligent."

    Patently false. You made a statement. That's it. Perhaps you lack the requisite intellectual horsepower to support it, or perhaps you are flinging poo in hopes it sticks to the wall.

    "The caveat is that I chose to interpret your very indeterminate response (“no”) in the most obvious way, as arguing that the American secession from British rule was not in fact secession."

    Without any evidence to back it up.

    "You might have intended it in another way, of course, though it’s difficult to see any intended meaning that is supported by the article you linked to."

    You are being disingenuous. The author clearly stated, which you acknowledged, that "The American Revolution itself is a very complicated thing and doesn’t in all senses belong in the category of secession."

    "No, it obviously does not. Read it again, because I’ve not had the impression you are really so intellectually limited as not to be able to grasp the point."

    The train is fine, Randall, the train is fine.

    "This pile of obfuscatory verbiage appears to be wholly unrelated to the issue of whether or not the American secession from British rule was or was not an act of secession."

    Key phrase being "appears". Basically, you are saying "I cannot muster up a cogent counter argument, so I will make a wild statement that appears to delegitimize that position".
  28. Corvinus says:
    @Randal

    First, in what other alleged instances?
     
    LOL! Nice try. No, I'm not going to waste time digging through all your old posts to find examples.

    It's my opinion formed from observing such actions on your part in the past. If readers find my personal observation unconvincing, I don't care.

    Second, if you are going to make this claim, then you need to state exactly how and why the author’s position “does not support my case”.
     
    I have done so, at least sufficiently for the minimally intelligent.

    The caveat is that I chose to interpret your very indeterminate response ("no") in the most obvious way, as arguing that the American secession from British rule was not in fact secession. You might have intended it in another way, of course, though it's difficult to see any intended meaning that is supported by the article you linked to.

    You quote the author directly, which contradicts your position.
     
    No, it obviously does not. Read it again, because I've not had the impression you are really so intellectually limited as not to be able to grasp the point.

    The Thirteen Colonies were not equal partners, as they formed as a result of imperial intentions. It legality arose squarely by way of royal charter or Parliamentary action. Moreover, the language of the Declaration of Independence refers to the individuals of the Thirteen Colonies whose rights were violated, not the Thirteen Colonies in and of itself. That is, the social contract between people and the government, rather than between member states, became untenable. The American colonists were part of an empire–they did not legally create it. In addition, a number of the Founding Fathers believed they were committing an act of treason by breaking away from the empire.
     
    This pile of obfuscatory verbiage appears to be wholly unrelated to the issue of whether or not the American secession from British rule was or was not an act of secession.

    “LOL! Nice try. No, I’m not going to waste time digging through all your old posts to find examples.”

    You made a claim. You were called upon to back it up. Now you’re acting like a typical SJW when confronted by the opposition to articulate a position.

    “It’s my opinion formed from observing such actions on your part in the past. If readers find my personal observation unconvincing, I don’t care.”

    Opinions are not equal in weight. Clearly you are making a statement without evidence to back it up. You might as well be saying that donkeys are not called asses.

    “I have done so, at least sufficiently for the minimally intelligent.”

    Patently false. You made a statement. That’s it. Perhaps you lack the requisite intellectual horsepower to support it, or perhaps you are flinging poo in hopes it sticks to the wall.

    “The caveat is that I chose to interpret your very indeterminate response (“no”) in the most obvious way, as arguing that the American secession from British rule was not in fact secession.”

    Without any evidence to back it up.

    “You might have intended it in another way, of course, though it’s difficult to see any intended meaning that is supported by the article you linked to.”

    You are being disingenuous. The author clearly stated, which you acknowledged, that “The American Revolution itself is a very complicated thing and doesn’t in all senses belong in the category of secession.”

    “No, it obviously does not. Read it again, because I’ve not had the impression you are really so intellectually limited as not to be able to grasp the point.”

    The train is fine, Randall, the train is fine.

    “This pile of obfuscatory verbiage appears to be wholly unrelated to the issue of whether or not the American secession from British rule was or was not an act of secession.”

    Key phrase being “appears”. Basically, you are saying “I cannot muster up a cogent counter argument, so I will make a wild statement that appears to delegitimize that position”.

    Read More
  29. Ivan K. says:

    Patrick Buchanan wrote: Croatia and Slovenia are today free ….. nationalism tore apart Yugoslavia

    Carroll Quigley (1965) wrote: “The first beginnings of Balkan nationalism must not be overemphasized. While the inhabitants of the area have always been unfriendly to outsiders and resentful of burdensome governments, these sentiments deserve to be regarded as provincialism or localism rather than nationalism. Such feelings are prevalent among all primitive peoples and must not be regarded as nationalism unless they are so wide as to embrace loyalty to all peoples of the same language and culture and are organized in such fashion that this loyalty is directed toward the state as the core of nationalist strivings.

    The breakup of Yugoslavia was followed by establishment of strongly independent states banana republics, and loyalty to all peoples of the same language and culture surge of unchecked corruption, clannishness and gangsterism.
    Instead of return of Croatian and Serbian immigrants to their liberated homelands, Croatia and Serbia produced new waves of mass emigration.
    Instead of defending every bit of their newly gained freedom & independence, Slovenia and Croatia joined EU, by which they lost much of the independence they gained in 1991.

    Tribalism leads to secession. To what a given case secession itself leads to is always uncertain.

    Online commenter Helmut_Schmidt69 calls us to go back to the first United Nations Conference, the Monetary and Financial Conference, that took place in 1944. The proposed mechanisms for international relations were UN control of exchange rates (i.e. a gold standard, with the UN setting the standard) and “decentralized autonomous regions (i.e. the “ethnostate”) that would be unable to field the industrial and manpower necessary to challenge the global regime.”

    I have no problem with Catalonia and Scotland being independent, if they can be so genuinely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I have no problem with Catalonia and Scotland being independent, if they can be so genuinely."

    Who makes you the sole arbiter regarding "genuine independence". It's not for you to unilaterally and arrogantly decide.
    , @Anonymous White Male
    "I have no problem with Catalonia and Scotland being independent, if they can be so genuinely."

    Catalonia and Scotland will just trade belonging in Spain or the United Kingdom with belonging to the EU empire. I think this is the way we should work it in America as well. If California will secede, other blue states might be emboldened to join them and they could become the Confederate States of America. Hmm, that name sounds familiar. Whatever. Anyway, this is a way around a civil war. Blue States despise Red States and Red States have contempt for Blue States. Why not allow them freedom from the idiots they hate? There are fundamental philosophical differences in what each one expects of government. Let the 83% of the land mass of the US, known as fly-over country by the Northeast and West Coast, live in their own decentralized fashion. Let the Blue States, that are driven by the urban "oases" full of diversity, live in their paradises of high population density.

    Of course, this is too rational to ever occur. Dissolving the Federal Government would possible lead to the repudiating of the Federal Debt, since the 14th Amendment ties all inhabitants of this country to eventually paying it off. Since that is impossible now, those that lent the imaginary money to real people will never give up their pound of flesh. Its not that Blue and Red States wouldn't mind telling each other goodbye and fuck off. Its just that their leaders are all bought and paid for and no one would advise them in any way that did not benefit the (((bankers))). Americans have been dumbed down so much that they will expect someone to think for them and tell them what to do. There are plenty of people that will do just that for 40 pieces of silver.
  30. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @bjondo
    israel demands u.s. support for independent kurds in iraq and syria eventually iran. keeps the pot boiling for a very long time benefiting israel.

    Buchanan always palys it DUMB when it comes to question of ziofacists and terrorist USG to protect its own interests to help his own pockets.

    He pretends that know shit about the “greater Israel” where terrorist USG and jewish neocons are in it to use dumb presidents for the interest of “greater israel” where demands “regime change” and partition of the regional states to erect another terrorist state like Israel, a second Isreal, where they take this wish into their graves including Buchanan. If you have not understood Oded Yinon plan and are AFRAID to talk about it, so YOU don’t mislead the dumb citizens, then you should not be here.

    The taitor kurds who have been in the pocket of ziofascists and terrorist USG fighting for the implementation of the enemy geopolitical plan, then should be executed as TRAITORS and their master must be force out like a rotten rats.

    Read More
  31. Corvinus says:
    @Ivan K.
    Patrick Buchanan wrote: Croatia and Slovenia are today free ..... nationalism tore apart Yugoslavia

    Carroll Quigley (1965) wrote: “The first beginnings of Balkan nationalism must not be overemphasized. While the inhabitants of the area have always been unfriendly to outsiders and resentful of burdensome governments, these sentiments deserve to be regarded as provincialism or localism rather than nationalism. Such feelings are prevalent among all primitive peoples and must not be regarded as nationalism unless they are so wide as to embrace loyalty to all peoples of the same language and culture and are organized in such fashion that this loyalty is directed toward the state as the core of nationalist strivings.

    The breakup of Yugoslavia was followed by establishment of strongly independent states banana republics, and loyalty to all peoples of the same language and culture surge of unchecked corruption, clannishness and gangsterism.
    Instead of return of Croatian and Serbian immigrants to their liberated homelands, Croatia and Serbia produced new waves of mass emigration.
    Instead of defending every bit of their newly gained freedom & independence, Slovenia and Croatia joined EU, by which they lost much of the independence they gained in 1991.

    Tribalism leads to secession. To what a given case secession itself leads to is always uncertain.

    Online commenter Helmut_Schmidt69 calls us to go back to the first United Nations Conference, the Monetary and Financial Conference, that took place in 1944. The proposed mechanisms for international relations were UN control of exchange rates (i.e. a gold standard, with the UN setting the standard) and “decentralized autonomous regions (i.e. the "ethnostate") that would be unable to field the industrial and manpower necessary to challenge the global regime.”

    I have no problem with Catalonia and Scotland being independent, if they can be so genuinely.

    “I have no problem with Catalonia and Scotland being independent, if they can be so genuinely.”

    Who makes you the sole arbiter regarding “genuine independence”. It’s not for you to unilaterally and arrogantly decide.

    Read More
    • Replies: @englishmike

    “I have no problem with Catalonia and Scotland being independent, if they can be so genuinely.”

    Who makes you the sole arbiter regarding “genuine independence”. It’s not for you to unilaterally and arrogantly decide.
     
    You did, by describing him as "the sole arbiter". To an impartial reader, he is not offering to "decide" anything, but is expressing a personal opinion (hence his use of the personal pronoun).

    When Ivan says:

    Instead of defending every bit of their newly gained freedom & independence, Slovenia and Croatia joined EU, by which they lost much of the independence they gained in 1991

     

    he is expressing a view that is shared by millions who regret the loss of their independence within that anti-democratic pseudo-empire. Spare him the burden of being a "sole arbiter".

    And don't be too quick to ascribe "arrogance" to others because they hold opinions which you do not share.
  32. @Corvinus
    "I have no problem with Catalonia and Scotland being independent, if they can be so genuinely."

    Who makes you the sole arbiter regarding "genuine independence". It's not for you to unilaterally and arrogantly decide.

    “I have no problem with Catalonia and Scotland being independent, if they can be so genuinely.”

    Who makes you the sole arbiter regarding “genuine independence”. It’s not for you to unilaterally and arrogantly decide.

    You did, by describing him as “the sole arbiter”. To an impartial reader, he is not offering to “decide” anything, but is expressing a personal opinion (hence his use of the personal pronoun).

    When Ivan says:

    Instead of defending every bit of their newly gained freedom & independence, Slovenia and Croatia joined EU, by which they lost much of the independence they gained in 1991

    he is expressing a view that is shared by millions who regret the loss of their independence within that anti-democratic pseudo-empire. Spare him the burden of being a “sole arbiter”.

    And don’t be too quick to ascribe “arrogance” to others because they hold opinions which you do not share.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "You did, by describing him as “the sole arbiter”. To an impartial reader, he is not offering to “decide” anything, but is expressing a personal opinion (hence his use of the personal pronoun)."

    The implication is clear--a group of people who work towards independence are legitimate in their goal only if they are "genuine". What metrics are involved? How does one go about measuring it? He can express his opinion, but his position comes across as if there is a particular standard that one must meet.

    "he is expressing a view that is shared by millions who regret the loss of their independence within that anti-democratic pseudo-empire.".

    First, working towards independence from a larger political body and losing independence from an "anti-democratic pseudo-empire" could be construed as two separate things.

    Second, what constitutes a "anti-democratic pseudo-empire"? You have to define it, then we can make the determination based on that definition as to whether or not people are "losing their independence".

    "And don’t be too quick to ascribe “arrogance” to others because they hold opinions which you do not share."

    It is arrogant to assume that people who seek independence are doing it for other than genuine reasons. They may be genuine, but their thought process may be ill-conceived or their actions may be illegitimate. Big difference here.

  33. @Ivan K.
    Patrick Buchanan wrote: Croatia and Slovenia are today free ..... nationalism tore apart Yugoslavia

    Carroll Quigley (1965) wrote: “The first beginnings of Balkan nationalism must not be overemphasized. While the inhabitants of the area have always been unfriendly to outsiders and resentful of burdensome governments, these sentiments deserve to be regarded as provincialism or localism rather than nationalism. Such feelings are prevalent among all primitive peoples and must not be regarded as nationalism unless they are so wide as to embrace loyalty to all peoples of the same language and culture and are organized in such fashion that this loyalty is directed toward the state as the core of nationalist strivings.

    The breakup of Yugoslavia was followed by establishment of strongly independent states banana republics, and loyalty to all peoples of the same language and culture surge of unchecked corruption, clannishness and gangsterism.
    Instead of return of Croatian and Serbian immigrants to their liberated homelands, Croatia and Serbia produced new waves of mass emigration.
    Instead of defending every bit of their newly gained freedom & independence, Slovenia and Croatia joined EU, by which they lost much of the independence they gained in 1991.

    Tribalism leads to secession. To what a given case secession itself leads to is always uncertain.

    Online commenter Helmut_Schmidt69 calls us to go back to the first United Nations Conference, the Monetary and Financial Conference, that took place in 1944. The proposed mechanisms for international relations were UN control of exchange rates (i.e. a gold standard, with the UN setting the standard) and “decentralized autonomous regions (i.e. the "ethnostate") that would be unable to field the industrial and manpower necessary to challenge the global regime.”

    I have no problem with Catalonia and Scotland being independent, if they can be so genuinely.

    “I have no problem with Catalonia and Scotland being independent, if they can be so genuinely.”

    Catalonia and Scotland will just trade belonging in Spain or the United Kingdom with belonging to the EU empire. I think this is the way we should work it in America as well. If California will secede, other blue states might be emboldened to join them and they could become the Confederate States of America. Hmm, that name sounds familiar. Whatever. Anyway, this is a way around a civil war. Blue States despise Red States and Red States have contempt for Blue States. Why not allow them freedom from the idiots they hate? There are fundamental philosophical differences in what each one expects of government. Let the 83% of the land mass of the US, known as fly-over country by the Northeast and West Coast, live in their own decentralized fashion. Let the Blue States, that are driven by the urban “oases” full of diversity, live in their paradises of high population density.

    Of course, this is too rational to ever occur. Dissolving the Federal Government would possible lead to the repudiating of the Federal Debt, since the 14th Amendment ties all inhabitants of this country to eventually paying it off. Since that is impossible now, those that lent the imaginary money to real people will never give up their pound of flesh. Its not that Blue and Red States wouldn’t mind telling each other goodbye and fuck off. Its just that their leaders are all bought and paid for and no one would advise them in any way that did not benefit the (((bankers))). Americans have been dumbed down so much that they will expect someone to think for them and tell them what to do. There are plenty of people that will do just that for 40 pieces of silver.

    Read More
  34. Corvinus says:
    @englishmike

    “I have no problem with Catalonia and Scotland being independent, if they can be so genuinely.”

    Who makes you the sole arbiter regarding “genuine independence”. It’s not for you to unilaterally and arrogantly decide.
     
    You did, by describing him as "the sole arbiter". To an impartial reader, he is not offering to "decide" anything, but is expressing a personal opinion (hence his use of the personal pronoun).

    When Ivan says:

    Instead of defending every bit of their newly gained freedom & independence, Slovenia and Croatia joined EU, by which they lost much of the independence they gained in 1991

     

    he is expressing a view that is shared by millions who regret the loss of their independence within that anti-democratic pseudo-empire. Spare him the burden of being a "sole arbiter".

    And don't be too quick to ascribe "arrogance" to others because they hold opinions which you do not share.

    “You did, by describing him as “the sole arbiter”. To an impartial reader, he is not offering to “decide” anything, but is expressing a personal opinion (hence his use of the personal pronoun).”

    The implication is clear–a group of people who work towards independence are legitimate in their goal only if they are “genuine”. What metrics are involved? How does one go about measuring it? He can express his opinion, but his position comes across as if there is a particular standard that one must meet.

    “he is expressing a view that is shared by millions who regret the loss of their independence within that anti-democratic pseudo-empire.”.

    First, working towards independence from a larger political body and losing independence from an “anti-democratic pseudo-empire” could be construed as two separate things.

    Second, what constitutes a “anti-democratic pseudo-empire”? You have to define it, then we can make the determination based on that definition as to whether or not people are “losing their independence”.

    “And don’t be too quick to ascribe “arrogance” to others because they hold opinions which you do not share.”

    It is arrogant to assume that people who seek independence are doing it for other than genuine reasons. They may be genuine, but their thought process may be ill-conceived or their actions may be illegitimate. Big difference here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @englishmike
    Ivan K. wrote:

    I have no problem with Catalonia and Scotland being independent, if they can be so genuinely.
     
    We disagree about what he is saying here. I take him to mean that he would like to see a country achieve "genuine" independence rather than an apparent independence that is then compromised by joining a body (such as the EU) which weakens that newly-achieved, or potential, independence. You read him as laying down "a particular standard" that a country "must meet" if they are to be seen as "legitimate in their goal". Thus, what I read as the expression of a personal opinion you read as the demands of a would-be "sole arbiter" who would like – "unilaterally and arrogantly" - to deny others the right to a personal opinion about what "genuine independence" might be.

    You say:

    The implication is clear–a group of people who work towards independence are legitimate in their goal only if they are “genuine”.
     
    Your inference that he was making a judgement about the "group of people" - how "genuine" they are and how "legitimate" is their goal - is not the most likely meaning of what he wrote. Isn't it obvious that the adverb "genuinely" is intended to describe the quality of the independence achieved, not the people seeking it, their "reasons" for doing so, or their legitimacy ?

    Of course, behind our disagreement lies the probability that you have a different view of the EU from mine or Ivan K's. You are not obliged to accept my description of it as an “anti-democratic pseudo-empire”, and I don't "have to define" what that means, in order that "we" (i.e. you) "can make the determination based on that definition as to whether or not people are 'losing their independence'”. If you know anything about the politics of the EU, you understand well enough what I mean. And I understand that nothing I "define" for you will make it safe from misinterpretation.
  35. @Corvinus
    "You did, by describing him as “the sole arbiter”. To an impartial reader, he is not offering to “decide” anything, but is expressing a personal opinion (hence his use of the personal pronoun)."

    The implication is clear--a group of people who work towards independence are legitimate in their goal only if they are "genuine". What metrics are involved? How does one go about measuring it? He can express his opinion, but his position comes across as if there is a particular standard that one must meet.

    "he is expressing a view that is shared by millions who regret the loss of their independence within that anti-democratic pseudo-empire.".

    First, working towards independence from a larger political body and losing independence from an "anti-democratic pseudo-empire" could be construed as two separate things.

    Second, what constitutes a "anti-democratic pseudo-empire"? You have to define it, then we can make the determination based on that definition as to whether or not people are "losing their independence".

    "And don’t be too quick to ascribe “arrogance” to others because they hold opinions which you do not share."

    It is arrogant to assume that people who seek independence are doing it for other than genuine reasons. They may be genuine, but their thought process may be ill-conceived or their actions may be illegitimate. Big difference here.

    Ivan K. wrote:

    I have no problem with Catalonia and Scotland being independent, if they can be so genuinely.

    We disagree about what he is saying here. I take him to mean that he would like to see a country achieve “genuine” independence rather than an apparent independence that is then compromised by joining a body (such as the EU) which weakens that newly-achieved, or potential, independence. You read him as laying down “a particular standard” that a country “must meet” if they are to be seen as “legitimate in their goal”. Thus, what I read as the expression of a personal opinion you read as the demands of a would-be “sole arbiter” who would like – “unilaterally and arrogantly” – to deny others the right to a personal opinion about what “genuine independence” might be.

    You say:

    The implication is clear–a group of people who work towards independence are legitimate in their goal only if they are “genuine”.

    Your inference that he was making a judgement about the “group of people” – how “genuine” they are and how “legitimate” is their goal – is not the most likely meaning of what he wrote. Isn’t it obvious that the adverb “genuinely” is intended to describe the quality of the independence achieved, not the people seeking it, their “reasons” for doing so, or their legitimacy ?

    Of course, behind our disagreement lies the probability that you have a different view of the EU from mine or Ivan K’s. You are not obliged to accept my description of it as an “anti-democratic pseudo-empire”, and I don’t “have to define” what that means, in order that “we” (i.e. you) “can make the determination based on that definition as to whether or not people are ‘losing their independence’”. If you know anything about the politics of the EU, you understand well enough what I mean. And I understand that nothing I “define” for you will make it safe from misinterpretation.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 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
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored