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

How stands John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill” this Thanksgiving?

How stands the country that was to be “a light unto the nations”?

To those who look to cable TV for news, the answer must at the least be ambiguous. For consider the issues that have lately convulsed the public discourse of the American republic.

Today’s great question seems to be whether our 45th president is as serious a sexual predator as our 42nd was proven to be, and whether the confessed sins of Sen. Al Franken are as great as the alleged sins of Judge Roy Moore.

On both questions, the divide is, as ever, along partisan lines.

And every day for weeks, beginning with Hollywood king Harvey Weinstein, whose accusers nearly number in three digits, actors, media personalities and politicians have been falling like nine pins over allegations and admissions of sexual predation.

What is our civil rights issue, and who are today’s successors to the Freedom Riders of the ’60s? Millionaire NFL players “taking a knee” during the national anthem to dishonor the flag of their country to protest racist cops.

And what was the great cultural issue of summer and fall?

An ideological clamor to tear down memorials and monuments to the European discoverers of America, any Founding Father who owned slaves and any and all Confederate soldiers and statesmen.

Stained-glass windows of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson have been removed from the National Cathedral. Plaques to Lee and George Washington have been taken down from the walls of the Episcopal church in Alexandria where both men worshipped.

But the city that bears Washington’s name is erecting a new statue on Pennsylvania Avenue — to honor the four-term mayor who served time on a cocaine charge: Marion Shepilov Barry.

Whatever side one may take on these questions, can a country so preoccupied and polarized on such pursuits be taken seriously as a claimant to be the “exceptional nation,” a model to which the world should look and aspire?

Contrast the social, cultural and moral morass in which America is steeped with the disciplined proceedings and clarity of purpose, direction and goals of our 21st-century rival: Xi Jinping’s China.

Our elites assure us that America today is a far better place than we have ever known, surely better than the old America that existed before the liberating cultural revolution of the 1960s.

Yet President Trump ran on a pledge to “Make America Great Again,” implying that while the America he grew up in was great, in the time of Barack Obama it no longer was. And he won.

Certainly, the issues America dealt with half a century ago seem more momentous than what consumes us today.

Consider the matters that riveted America in the summer and fall of 1962, when this columnist began to write editorials for the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. What was the civil rights issue of that day?

In September of ’62, Gov. Ross Barnett decided not to allow Air Force vet James Meredith to become the first black student at Ole Miss. Attorney General Robert Kennedy sent U.S. Marshals to escort Meredith in.

ORDER IT NOW

Hundreds of demonstrators arrived on campus to join student protests. A riot ensued. Dozens of marshals were injured. A French journalist was shot to death. The Mississippi Guard was federalized. U.S. troops were sent in, just as Ike had sent them into Little Rock when Gov. Orville Faubus refused to desegregate Central High.

U.S. power was being used to enforce a federal court order on a recalcitrant state government, as it would in 1963 at the University of Alabama, where Gov. George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door.

As civil rights clashes go, this was the real deal.

That fall, in a surprise attack, Chinese troops poured through the passes in the Himalayas, invading India. China declared a truce in November but kept the territories it had occupied in Jammu and Kashmir.

Then there was the Cuban missile crisis, the most dangerous crisis of the Cold War.

Since August, the Globe-Democrat had been calling for a blockade of Cuba, where Soviet ships were regularly unloading weapons. When President Kennedy declared a “quarantine” after revealing that missiles with nuclear warheads that could reach Washington were being installed, the Globe urged unity behind him, as it had in Oxford, Mississippi.

We seemed a more serious and united nation and people then than we are today, where so much that roils our society and consumes our attention seems unserious and even trivial.

“And how can man die better than facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods?” wrote the British poet Thomas Macaulay.

Since 1962, this nation has dethroned its God and begun debates about which of the flawed but great men who created the nation should be publicly dishonored. Are we really a better country today than we were then, when all the world looked to America as the land of the future?

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: Political Correctness 
Hide 60 CommentsLeave a Comment
60 Comments to "Unserious Nation"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    US is seriously stupid.

    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/unserious-nation/#comment-2087222
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. “… can a country so preoccupied and polarized on such pursuits be taken seriously as a claimant to be the “exceptional nation,” ….”

    Ordinarily, I would say no, but it seems like most of the Western World is racing us to the bottom, and the rest of the world aren’t really candidates.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. The seeds of the decay that Patrick Buchanan now decries were sown, inter alia, by the very events he seems now to want to celebrate.

    Read More
    • Agree: Johnny Smoggins
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. ‘That fall, in a surprise attack, Chinese troops poured through the passes in the Himalayas, invading India. China declared a truce in November but kept the territories it had occupied in Jammu and Kashmir.’
    Not much of a surprise! Chou en Lai had made at least three visits to Delhi, begging Nehru to call off his ‘forward policy’ (forward of the Line of Control–in other words, invasion of Chinese territory) to no avail. The memoir of an Australian diplomat, Gregory Clark, throws some light on the events:

    As with Vietnam, the real question which needs to be answered is howobvious facts of communist/anti-communist conflicts can be hidden and distorted for so long by the bureaucratic press and academic establishments which postwar Western societies have spawned. Maxwell, who wrote for The Times from New Delhi during the 1962 fighting, was the only correspondent there who refused to accept uncritically the official Indian account of events. This led to his virtual expulsion from the country. [India's China War. Neville Maxwell].

    My own experience as China desk officer in the Department ofExternal Affairs during 1962 may also be relevant.

    At the time it was not difficult to realise that something was very wrong with the Indian statement of their dispute with China. Peking had all but declared openly it would renounce its not inconsiderable claim to the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA), by far the largest and most valuable of the territories in dispute. Its claim to the Aksai Chin region inthe west seemed strong, and it was clearly moving towards an AksaiChin/NEFA exchange as a basis for settling the dispute.

    Delhi, however, rejected this highly favourable proposal, and demanded a complete Chinese evacuation of the Aksai Chin. To validate its claimto the area its historians produced an obviously false quotation from aBritish proposal to China in 1899. During 1962 India began openly tomove troops into the disputed territory to force the Chinese from posi-tions they already occupied. Chinese protestations that this would inevit-ably lead to serious clashes were ignored. The Chinese argument thatan evacuation of the Aksai Chin should in all fairness be matched by anIndian evacuation of the NEFA was dismissed.

    This in itself was remarkable enough, but Nehru then decided to go one step further and drive the Chinese out of territory to which India could not conceivably have any claim. At the western end of the McMahon Line which separates India and China in the NEFA there is a small wedge of territory known as the Dhola Strip. It was clear fromthe maps available before the fighting, and from the original of the McMahon Line circulated by the Chinese after the fighting began, that the area lay to the north of the McMahon Line. Even on the basis of co-ordinates given by the Indians the strip lay in Chinese territory.

    I should add that this was not simply my own conclusion; it was confirmed (or at least failed to be denied) by the competent authorities in both London and Washington at the time.

    Desk officers are responsible for initiating the processes by which information passes up the bureaucracy to the policy makers. Immediately after the Chinese move to repel the advancing Indians from Dhola Strip, however, Canberra came out with its denunciations of “Chinese aggression” and pledges of unconditional support to India.

    Nevertheless, the evidence of Indian duplicity was so overwhelming that a paper setting out the background to the dispute and recommending conditions on Australian aid to India was accepted up to a fairly high level in the Department. It was killed at the next rung on the bureaucratic ladder, however, on the grounds that it was ‘not in the Australian interest to see any relaxation of tension between China and India’. The gentleman responsible for this wisdom was subsequently to oversee the first Australian commitment of troops to Vietnam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    ...on the grounds that it was ‘not in the Australian interest to see any relaxation of tension between China and India’.
     
    Veddy interestink!

    Thanks!
    , @exudd1
    Excellent comment; interesting, informative and persuasive . Thanks.
    , @DB Cooper
    "Not much of a surprise! Chou en Lai had made at least three visits to Delhi, begging Nehru to call off his ‘forward policy’ (forward of the Line of Control–in other words, invasion of Chinese territory) to no avail. The memoir of an Australian diplomat, Gregory Clark, throws some light on the events: "

    Godfree is right on the money on this one. Here are three independent sources that back up what Godfree said.

    http://gregoryclark.net/redif.html
    http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/news-events/podcasts/renewed-tension-indiachina-border-whos-blame
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8FuHxRDJcU

    The relevant part on the YouTube clip starts on 12:37. Sidney Rittenberg's recollection is particularly revealing because it gives direct insights into the mindset of the Chinese leadership at that time regarding the war.


    The right way to think about India is not that it is a democracy and hence it is peaceful (empirically this is obviously not the case for many democracies in the world but I digress). The right way to think about India is that it is a British Raj wannabe and hence immediately after its creation in 1947 it pick up what the Raj had left and continue the old business of the expansionism of the Raj. The difference is that unlike India's other neighbors China was able to fight back. India is the belligerent party. No doubt about it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Can the decision to erect a statue of Marion Berry in Washington, on Pennsylvania Avenue no less, be seen as anything but a gigantic “fuck you” to White America? Particularly when statues of nation builders like Lee and Jefferson are being defaced and torn down simultaneously. As we all know, Washington himself is next for the SJW/BLM treatment.

    And as Diversity Heretic has pointed out above, the events of “the civil rights” era that Pat seems to think are a watershed in America’s past nobility were the beginning of the end for America as a great nation. But then (((they were designed))) to do just that, so in a way they were a success.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik, Godfree Roberts
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    I was in DC when Barry was mayor (I worked there but lived in Virginia). Even the ultra-left wing City Paper was appalled by his behavior. (He probably personified the arguments against democracy.) You're right--the Barry Administration was founded on the concept of "let's all put a thumb in the eye of White Washington," and putting up a statue of this pathetic specimen of humanity is motivated by exactly the same "up yours, whitey," sentiment that characterized his administration.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Marion Barry wasn’t the only male public figure whose career has revolved around cocaine use. The unacknowledged not-so-secret secret is that most of these Hollywood moguls and TV stars are avid users of the stuff. How much of their inappropriate behavior was driven by cocaine? Cocaine raises the sense of sexuality while at the same time lowering inhibitions. Just look what it did to Freud. He was so addled by the stuff that he imputed all human motives to sex.

    The problem is that while under the influence of a stimulant like coke or speed, a person does stuff which they later, when they come down, cannot justify existentially. They put themselves in positions that they are not willing to or are incapable of defending.

    So for example, Hitler, high on benzedrine, made decisions that a sane, sober man would not have made. Misled by his altered state of mind, by artificial confidence, Hitler boldly moved into areas that he could not defend. And this is not to be thought of as just Germany’s occupation of the physical acreage of foreign territory. It is also psychic. He put himself and Germany in a psychic space that was indefensible. We see the same thing going on with Weinstein et al.

    Tell-all writers reveal that Wall St. booms from the 80′s on were fueled by the ersatz self confidence of cocaine. And they too overreached; staked out more territory than they could defend. Then they crashed, in both the financial and in the coming-down-from-a-high-with-a-thump sense.

    Ironically, only the wealthy can afford a daily cocaine habit and so America’s wealthy have become untethered from the limits, the checks and balances that impose negative feedback on the rest of us. They don’t feel our pains because they are bedazzled and benumbed by drugs. The devil who dispensed elixirs to the privileged has come back for his payment. Rather than give up their first-born, the wealthy are tossing the underclass into his maw as sacrifices. Do they seriously believe that he will be satisfied with scape-goats?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey ThreeCranes,

    The unacknowledged not-so-secret secret is that most of these Hollywood moguls and TV stars are avid users of the stuff.
     
    I used to work in an startup during the .com boom (who didn't) where one of our guys was a lawyer that used to work on legal teams for these Hollywood big shots. He described what the parties were like; huge mansions, plenty of young topless women in the pool, lines of cocaine everywhere for people to use, etc. - really crazy "Hedonist Central" stuff. That was kind of expected, then he told us, all the cops knew about it, but nobody did a thing.

    Guess that's probably a good thing -since it was all on private residence. Though I doubt they would have taken that laissez faire approach with the average working man.

    Peace.
    , @Hu Mi Yu

    Ironically, only the wealthy can afford a daily cocaine habit and so America’s wealthy have become untethered from the limits, the checks and balances that impose negative feedback on the rest of us. They don’t feel our pains because they are bedazzled and benumbed by drugs.
     
    I wish that this were so, but it clearly isn't. People of more moderate means become untethered with amphetamines and their analogs. Add in the widespread problems with opiates. Also alcohol has always been a major problem for us. Our Puritan forefathers were renown for drunkenness. Eisenhower was renown for "highballs" (whiskey mixed with water), and Franklin Roosevelt was notorious for mixing martinis for guests during prohibition.

    These other drugs also affect our awareness badly. The drug epidemic affects everyone. We have become disconnected, because we no longer have empathy for each other. The center is failing, and as a nation we are torn apart by centripetal forces.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Talha says:
    @ThreeCranes
    Marion Barry wasn't the only male public figure whose career has revolved around cocaine use. The unacknowledged not-so-secret secret is that most of these Hollywood moguls and TV stars are avid users of the stuff. How much of their inappropriate behavior was driven by cocaine? Cocaine raises the sense of sexuality while at the same time lowering inhibitions. Just look what it did to Freud. He was so addled by the stuff that he imputed all human motives to sex.

    The problem is that while under the influence of a stimulant like coke or speed, a person does stuff which they later, when they come down, cannot justify existentially. They put themselves in positions that they are not willing to or are incapable of defending.

    So for example, Hitler, high on benzedrine, made decisions that a sane, sober man would not have made. Misled by his altered state of mind, by artificial confidence, Hitler boldly moved into areas that he could not defend. And this is not to be thought of as just Germany's occupation of the physical acreage of foreign territory. It is also psychic. He put himself and Germany in a psychic space that was indefensible. We see the same thing going on with Weinstein et al.

    Tell-all writers reveal that Wall St. booms from the 80's on were fueled by the ersatz self confidence of cocaine. And they too overreached; staked out more territory than they could defend. Then they crashed, in both the financial and in the coming-down-from-a-high-with-a-thump sense.

    Ironically, only the wealthy can afford a daily cocaine habit and so America's wealthy have become untethered from the limits, the checks and balances that impose negative feedback on the rest of us. They don't feel our pains because they are bedazzled and benumbed by drugs. The devil who dispensed elixirs to the privileged has come back for his payment. Rather than give up their first-born, the wealthy are tossing the underclass into his maw as sacrifices. Do they seriously believe that he will be satisfied with scape-goats?

    Hey ThreeCranes,

    The unacknowledged not-so-secret secret is that most of these Hollywood moguls and TV stars are avid users of the stuff.

    I used to work in an startup during the .com boom (who didn’t) where one of our guys was a lawyer that used to work on legal teams for these Hollywood big shots. He described what the parties were like; huge mansions, plenty of young topless women in the pool, lines of cocaine everywhere for people to use, etc. – really crazy “Hedonist Central” stuff. That was kind of expected, then he told us, all the cops knew about it, but nobody did a thing.

    Guess that’s probably a good thing -since it was all on private residence. Though I doubt they would have taken that laissez faire approach with the average working man.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bartok
    STAY OUT OF MALIBU, DEADBEAT! Keep your ugly fucking goldbricking ass out of my beach community!
    , @Thirdeye

    Though I doubt they would have taken that laissez faire approach with the average working man.
     
    The so-called War on Drugs was always directed against the average working man. I see a lot of parallels between it and the enforced puritanism in the workplace that took hold during the 1980s. Allegations of sexual harassment could pretty much come out of thin air when somebody saw it to their advantage in a workplace conflict. The Hollywood sexual harassment scandal, which #metoo has transformed into a general moral panic, illustrates just how different the rules are for those at the bottom and the top of the food chain. Maybe moving the witch hunt to the top levels of power will enlighten people as to the ridiculousness of the environment the ordinary working man has been in for the past 30 years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. MEexpert says:

    Why single out Marion Barry? We have a statue of Magic Johnson, the self proclaimed sex king (sex on his office desk and in the elevators fame) in front of the LA Arena. Of course, the Canton, OH, Cooperstown, NY, and Springfield, MA Halls of Fame are full of drug and sex addicts idolized by millions of Americans. People like, Charlie Sheen, Morton Downey, Jr., and Lindsay Lohan were in and out of jail for drug use and still have their careers. You think poor old Jose would have been so lucky.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. bartok says:
    @Talha
    Hey ThreeCranes,

    The unacknowledged not-so-secret secret is that most of these Hollywood moguls and TV stars are avid users of the stuff.
     
    I used to work in an startup during the .com boom (who didn't) where one of our guys was a lawyer that used to work on legal teams for these Hollywood big shots. He described what the parties were like; huge mansions, plenty of young topless women in the pool, lines of cocaine everywhere for people to use, etc. - really crazy "Hedonist Central" stuff. That was kind of expected, then he told us, all the cops knew about it, but nobody did a thing.

    Guess that's probably a good thing -since it was all on private residence. Though I doubt they would have taken that laissez faire approach with the average working man.

    Peace.

    STAY OUT OF MALIBU, DEADBEAT! Keep your ugly fucking goldbricking ass out of my beach community!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Aye aye captain! I promise not to settle down in Malibu - you win! Please report your victory to the local chamber of commerce.

    Peace.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    I took one of my deadbeat British friends along to one such party in Malibu but soon overheard somebody asking, "who bought that asshole?" so we promptly left. I returned later and nobody was the wiser. Too tweaked to notice, I suppose. Sorry if we made too much noise though.
    , @Vladtero
    You forgot to use quotation marks.

    For those who don't know this is a quote from the classic movie "The Big Lebowski." The police chief of Malibu yells that line to "the dude," after the dude has just been ejected from one of those Hollywood style parties after drinking a "doctored" White Russian made by notorious pornographer "Jackie Treehorn."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Talha says:
    @bartok
    STAY OUT OF MALIBU, DEADBEAT! Keep your ugly fucking goldbricking ass out of my beach community!

    Aye aye captain! I promise not to settle down in Malibu – you win! Please report your victory to the local chamber of commerce.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Considering Malibu is probably nearly the most unserious part of the "unserious nation",

    Malibu, Malibu
    When will you meet your Malibu?
    Every puppy has his day,
    Everybody has to pay:
    Where will you meet your Malibu?

    (to misquote country singer Stonewall Jackson)
    , @Mark Green
    Hi Talha. You are always a gentleman. It's one or your many qualities.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. anon says: • Disclaimer

    “Since 1962, this nation has dethroned its God and begun debates about which of the flawed but great men who created the nation should be publicly dishonored. Are we really a better country today than we were then, when all the world looked to America as the land of the future?”

    This non sequitur is typical of Buchanan, and of many religious people. He always needs to blame anything bad on turning one’s back on the superstitious nonsense which he believes. Our problems aren’t due to not worshipping a God, but rather to lack of intelligence and character.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Our problems aren’t due to not worshipping a God, but rather to lack of intelligence and character.

    It's like this. Based on history, there will never be enough intelligence and character to have a sane society. Intelligence and character are crucial, I agree, but if humans are allowed total freedom, greed and mendacity will win over integrity and character.
    Intelligence itself if value-free. It is a tool. Intelligence can serve vanity, mendacity, and greed OR it can serve truth, decency, and integrity. Over time, intelligence is seduced by Power and Privilege, and it will bend any rule to get em.

    This is why God is a useful force in a society. Authority of God means there is ALWAYS something higher than whatever man's vanity, egotism, greed, and decadence can cook up in the Current Year. God is like the Lid on a pot on the stove.

    Without such a force, people begin to think their conceits and ideas are the highest truth.
    Is it any wonder that so many non-believers are so totally convinced of the wonders of homomania?

    For most of US history, even among non-believers, there was the Power and Authority of God that reminded people that there is always a greater truth than the fashion of the moment cooked up by human intellect or ingenuity. But without such a cultural and moral force, we get PC gone wild.
    , @c matt
    It's only a superstition if it's not true.
    , @The Scalpel
    "Our problems aren’t due to not worshipping a God, but rather to lack of intelligence and character."

    Lack of intelligence and character is not a problem we can solve except through selective breeding - which is very unlikely to happen. For this reason, we need a God for the ignoramuses. They have to be conned into good behavior even when there is no significant risk of consequences for bad behavior

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Johnny Smoggins
    Can the decision to erect a statue of Marion Berry in Washington, on Pennsylvania Avenue no less, be seen as anything but a gigantic "fuck you" to White America? Particularly when statues of nation builders like Lee and Jefferson are being defaced and torn down simultaneously. As we all know, Washington himself is next for the SJW/BLM treatment.

    And as Diversity Heretic has pointed out above, the events of "the civil rights" era that Pat seems to think are a watershed in America's past nobility were the beginning of the end for America as a great nation. But then (((they were designed))) to do just that, so in a way they were a success.

    I was in DC when Barry was mayor (I worked there but lived in Virginia). Even the ultra-left wing City Paper was appalled by his behavior. (He probably personified the arguments against democracy.) You’re right–the Barry Administration was founded on the concept of “let’s all put a thumb in the eye of White Washington,” and putting up a statue of this pathetic specimen of humanity is motivated by exactly the same “up yours, whitey,” sentiment that characterized his administration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anon
    "Since 1962, this nation has dethroned its God and begun debates about which of the flawed but great men who created the nation should be publicly dishonored. Are we really a better country today than we were then, when all the world looked to America as the land of the future?"


    This non sequitur is typical of Buchanan, and of many religious people. He always needs to blame anything bad on turning one's back on the superstitious nonsense which he believes. Our problems aren't due to not worshipping a God, but rather to lack of intelligence and character.

    Our problems aren’t due to not worshipping a God, but rather to lack of intelligence and character.

    It’s like this. Based on history, there will never be enough intelligence and character to have a sane society. Intelligence and character are crucial, I agree, but if humans are allowed total freedom, greed and mendacity will win over integrity and character.
    Intelligence itself if value-free. It is a tool. Intelligence can serve vanity, mendacity, and greed OR it can serve truth, decency, and integrity. Over time, intelligence is seduced by Power and Privilege, and it will bend any rule to get em.

    This is why God is a useful force in a society. Authority of God means there is ALWAYS something higher than whatever man’s vanity, egotism, greed, and decadence can cook up in the Current Year. God is like the Lid on a pot on the stove.

    Without such a force, people begin to think their conceits and ideas are the highest truth.
    Is it any wonder that so many non-believers are so totally convinced of the wonders of homomania?

    For most of US history, even among non-believers, there was the Power and Authority of God that reminded people that there is always a greater truth than the fashion of the moment cooked up by human intellect or ingenuity. But without such a cultural and moral force, we get PC gone wild.

    Read More
    • Agree: Druid
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Whatever side one may take on these questions, can a country so preoccupied and polarized on such pursuits be taken seriously as a claimant to be the “exceptional nation,” a model to which the world should look and aspire?

    Not only are we not an “exceptional nation,” we’re not a nation at all. A nation is a people with a share ethnicity, culture and history. It’s difficult to imagine too many countries less like a nation than the United States.

    We are a collection of peoples with little in common other than we all work here. The fact that we are no longer a nation will take a long time to be realized; nobody likes to acknowledge that a loved one is dying. But it will become more and more obvious, and the younger generations who will have never known the U.S. when it was a true nation will care less and less about this entity known as the United States.

    Read More
    • Agree: Zumbuddi
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Not only are we not an “exceptional nation,” we’re not a nation at all. A nation is a people with a share ethnicity, culture and history. It’s difficult to imagine too many countries less like a nation than the United States."

    Peddling more nonsense yet again. The United States is a nation. It was founded at first by colonists from various European countries, each of whom spoke different languages and had their own customs. Slowly, but surely, these groups of people created a unique culture. Eventually, non-Europeans entered the mix with their ways of life. The Founding Fathers in their wisdom granted Congress and future generations the liberty to define for ourselves our posterity.

    You must go back.

    "But it will become more and more obvious, and the younger generations who will have never known the U.S. when it was a true nation will care less and less about this entity known as the United States."

    You desperately HOPE that Generation Z and their offspring will endear themselves to have a total disdain for their own nation. You are further from the truth.

    You must go back.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @bartok
    STAY OUT OF MALIBU, DEADBEAT! Keep your ugly fucking goldbricking ass out of my beach community!

    I took one of my deadbeat British friends along to one such party in Malibu but soon overheard somebody asking, “who bought that asshole?” so we promptly left. I returned later and nobody was the wiser. Too tweaked to notice, I suppose. Sorry if we made too much noise though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Godfree Roberts
    'That fall, in a surprise attack, Chinese troops poured through the passes in the Himalayas, invading India. China declared a truce in November but kept the territories it had occupied in Jammu and Kashmir.'
    Not much of a surprise! Chou en Lai had made at least three visits to Delhi, begging Nehru to call off his 'forward policy' (forward of the Line of Control–in other words, invasion of Chinese territory) to no avail. The memoir of an Australian diplomat, Gregory Clark, throws some light on the events:

    As with Vietnam, the real question which needs to be answered is howobvious facts of communist/anti-communist conflicts can be hidden and distorted for so long by the bureaucratic press and academic establishments which postwar Western societies have spawned. Maxwell, who wrote for The Times from New Delhi during the 1962 fighting, was the only correspondent there who refused to accept uncritically the official Indian account of events. This led to his virtual expulsion from the country. [India's China War. Neville Maxwell].

    My own experience as China desk officer in the Department ofExternal Affairs during 1962 may also be relevant.

    At the time it was not difficult to realise that something was very wrong with the Indian statement of their dispute with China. Peking had all but declared openly it would renounce its not inconsiderable claim to the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA), by far the largest and most valuable of the territories in dispute. Its claim to the Aksai Chin region inthe west seemed strong, and it was clearly moving towards an AksaiChin/NEFA exchange as a basis for settling the dispute.

    Delhi, however, rejected this highly favourable proposal, and demanded a complete Chinese evacuation of the Aksai Chin. To validate its claimto the area its historians produced an obviously false quotation from aBritish proposal to China in 1899. During 1962 India began openly tomove troops into the disputed territory to force the Chinese from posi-tions they already occupied. Chinese protestations that this would inevit-ably lead to serious clashes were ignored. The Chinese argument thatan evacuation of the Aksai Chin should in all fairness be matched by anIndian evacuation of the NEFA was dismissed.

    This in itself was remarkable enough, but Nehru then decided to go one step further and drive the Chinese out of territory to which India could not conceivably have any claim. At the western end of the McMahon Line which separates India and China in the NEFA there is a small wedge of territory known as the Dhola Strip. It was clear fromthe maps available before the fighting, and from the original of the McMahon Line circulated by the Chinese after the fighting began, that the area lay to the north of the McMahon Line. Even on the basis of co-ordinates given by the Indians the strip lay in Chinese territory.

    I should add that this was not simply my own conclusion; it was confirmed (or at least failed to be denied) by the competent authorities in both London and Washington at the time.

    Desk officers are responsible for initiating the processes by which information passes up the bureaucracy to the policy makers. Immediately after the Chinese move to repel the advancing Indians from Dhola Strip, however, Canberra came out with its denunciations of "Chinese aggression" and pledges of unconditional support to India.

    Nevertheless, the evidence of Indian duplicity was so overwhelming that a paper setting out the background to the dispute and recommending conditions on Australian aid to India was accepted up to a fairly high level in the Department. It was killed at the next rung on the bureaucratic ladder, however, on the grounds that it was 'not in the Australian interest to see any relaxation of tension between China and India'. The gentleman responsible for this wisdom was subsequently to oversee the first Australian commitment of troops to Vietnam.
     

    …on the grounds that it was ‘not in the Australian interest to see any relaxation of tension between China and India’.

    Veddy interestink!

    Thanks!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Since 1962, this nation has dethroned its God…

    No, it has not. It was always about power and, despite the grand sounding rhetoric, how to most efficiently screw the little guy.

    Pat’s sobbing in his beer is a shame. For a dose of reality he should go read the anti-federalists instead.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @exudd1
    Agree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Aye aye captain! I promise not to settle down in Malibu - you win! Please report your victory to the local chamber of commerce.

    Peace.

    Considering Malibu is probably nearly the most unserious part of the “unserious nation”,

    Malibu, Malibu
    When will you meet your Malibu?
    Every puppy has his day,
    Everybody has to pay:
    Where will you meet your Malibu?

    (to misquote country singer Stonewall Jackson)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. c matt says:
    @anon
    "Since 1962, this nation has dethroned its God and begun debates about which of the flawed but great men who created the nation should be publicly dishonored. Are we really a better country today than we were then, when all the world looked to America as the land of the future?"


    This non sequitur is typical of Buchanan, and of many religious people. He always needs to blame anything bad on turning one's back on the superstitious nonsense which he believes. Our problems aren't due to not worshipping a God, but rather to lack of intelligence and character.

    It’s only a superstition if it’s not true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    "Truth, thus held, is but one superstition the more, accidentally clinging to the words which enunciate a truth."

    John Stuart Mill
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Women coming forth with sexual harassment allegations has been useful, but this is more important. More teachers and other folks must come forth to discuss BAMMAMA, or blacks are more muscular and more aggressive.

    https://nypost.com/2017/11/21/dozens-of-teachers-terrorized-by-out-of-control-students-flee-school-district/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. exudd1 says:
    @Godfree Roberts
    'That fall, in a surprise attack, Chinese troops poured through the passes in the Himalayas, invading India. China declared a truce in November but kept the territories it had occupied in Jammu and Kashmir.'
    Not much of a surprise! Chou en Lai had made at least three visits to Delhi, begging Nehru to call off his 'forward policy' (forward of the Line of Control–in other words, invasion of Chinese territory) to no avail. The memoir of an Australian diplomat, Gregory Clark, throws some light on the events:

    As with Vietnam, the real question which needs to be answered is howobvious facts of communist/anti-communist conflicts can be hidden and distorted for so long by the bureaucratic press and academic establishments which postwar Western societies have spawned. Maxwell, who wrote for The Times from New Delhi during the 1962 fighting, was the only correspondent there who refused to accept uncritically the official Indian account of events. This led to his virtual expulsion from the country. [India's China War. Neville Maxwell].

    My own experience as China desk officer in the Department ofExternal Affairs during 1962 may also be relevant.

    At the time it was not difficult to realise that something was very wrong with the Indian statement of their dispute with China. Peking had all but declared openly it would renounce its not inconsiderable claim to the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA), by far the largest and most valuable of the territories in dispute. Its claim to the Aksai Chin region inthe west seemed strong, and it was clearly moving towards an AksaiChin/NEFA exchange as a basis for settling the dispute.

    Delhi, however, rejected this highly favourable proposal, and demanded a complete Chinese evacuation of the Aksai Chin. To validate its claimto the area its historians produced an obviously false quotation from aBritish proposal to China in 1899. During 1962 India began openly tomove troops into the disputed territory to force the Chinese from posi-tions they already occupied. Chinese protestations that this would inevit-ably lead to serious clashes were ignored. The Chinese argument thatan evacuation of the Aksai Chin should in all fairness be matched by anIndian evacuation of the NEFA was dismissed.

    This in itself was remarkable enough, but Nehru then decided to go one step further and drive the Chinese out of territory to which India could not conceivably have any claim. At the western end of the McMahon Line which separates India and China in the NEFA there is a small wedge of territory known as the Dhola Strip. It was clear fromthe maps available before the fighting, and from the original of the McMahon Line circulated by the Chinese after the fighting began, that the area lay to the north of the McMahon Line. Even on the basis of co-ordinates given by the Indians the strip lay in Chinese territory.

    I should add that this was not simply my own conclusion; it was confirmed (or at least failed to be denied) by the competent authorities in both London and Washington at the time.

    Desk officers are responsible for initiating the processes by which information passes up the bureaucracy to the policy makers. Immediately after the Chinese move to repel the advancing Indians from Dhola Strip, however, Canberra came out with its denunciations of "Chinese aggression" and pledges of unconditional support to India.

    Nevertheless, the evidence of Indian duplicity was so overwhelming that a paper setting out the background to the dispute and recommending conditions on Australian aid to India was accepted up to a fairly high level in the Department. It was killed at the next rung on the bureaucratic ladder, however, on the grounds that it was 'not in the Australian interest to see any relaxation of tension between China and India'. The gentleman responsible for this wisdom was subsequently to oversee the first Australian commitment of troops to Vietnam.
     

    Excellent comment; interesting, informative and persuasive . Thanks.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. exudd1 says:
    @jacques sheete

    Since 1962, this nation has dethroned its God...
     
    No, it has not. It was always about power and, despite the grand sounding rhetoric, how to most efficiently screw the little guy.

    Pat's sobbing in his beer is a shame. For a dose of reality he should go read the anti-federalists instead.

    Agree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Vladtero says:
    @bartok
    STAY OUT OF MALIBU, DEADBEAT! Keep your ugly fucking goldbricking ass out of my beach community!

    You forgot to use quotation marks.

    For those who don’t know this is a quote from the classic movie “The Big Lebowski.” The police chief of Malibu yells that line to “the dude,” after the dude has just been ejected from one of those Hollywood style parties after drinking a “doctored” White Russian made by notorious pornographer “Jackie Treehorn.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Ah OK - I thought he was being serious!!! LOL!

    I should have responded with; "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. KenH says:

    We’re told that we are the exceptional nation but in reality we’ve become a highly dysfunctional multicultural flophouse and our internal discord and cartoonish media has made us such a laughingstock that the rest of the world is probably slapping their knees. That’s what happens when the country is run by a Jewish mafia from Hollywood, New York City and Tel Aviv on the Potomoc.

    No wonder Putin is just playing for time as he can see it’s only a matter of time before the USSA implodes and collapses of its own dead weight just like the former USSR did.

    Are we really a better country today than we were then, when all the world looked to America as the land of the future?

    Hell no and I think anyone with a brain, which would exclude all loony lefties, knows it. America was 90% white and much more cohesive and sane in 1962 than it is in 2017. The divorce rate was low and feminism hadn’t appeared to make women insane.

    Only a fool would think that a 50% divorce rate, ideological rancor, race hatred, gender confusion and division of 2017 is a marked improvement over pre-1965, pre-snivel rights bad old days.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "That’s what happens when the country is run by a Jewish mafia from Hollywood, New York City and Tel Aviv on the Potomoc."

    Man, have you been bamboozled.

    "America was 90% white and much more cohesive and sane in 1962 than it is in 2017. "

    Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Talha says:
    @Vladtero
    You forgot to use quotation marks.

    For those who don't know this is a quote from the classic movie "The Big Lebowski." The police chief of Malibu yells that line to "the dude," after the dude has just been ejected from one of those Hollywood style parties after drinking a "doctored" White Russian made by notorious pornographer "Jackie Treehorn."

    Ah OK – I thought he was being serious!!! LOL!

    I should have responded with; “Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/how-muslims-are-kept-mostly-peaceful-in-india/ These anti-Muslim nativist boobs are crying out for your correction. And if Muslim idiot invaders did not kill 80 million Hindus then give me your number. I will admit that many historical accounting of atrocities can be cut in half. And don't turn down the ham at your in laws Thanksgiving table.
    , @anon
    you're not wrong, talha, you're just an asshole...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Corvinus says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Whatever side one may take on these questions, can a country so preoccupied and polarized on such pursuits be taken seriously as a claimant to be the “exceptional nation,” a model to which the world should look and aspire?
     
    Not only are we not an "exceptional nation," we're not a nation at all. A nation is a people with a share ethnicity, culture and history. It's difficult to imagine too many countries less like a nation than the United States.

    We are a collection of peoples with little in common other than we all work here. The fact that we are no longer a nation will take a long time to be realized; nobody likes to acknowledge that a loved one is dying. But it will become more and more obvious, and the younger generations who will have never known the U.S. when it was a true nation will care less and less about this entity known as the United States.

    “Not only are we not an “exceptional nation,” we’re not a nation at all. A nation is a people with a share ethnicity, culture and history. It’s difficult to imagine too many countries less like a nation than the United States.”

    Peddling more nonsense yet again. The United States is a nation. It was founded at first by colonists from various European countries, each of whom spoke different languages and had their own customs. Slowly, but surely, these groups of people created a unique culture. Eventually, non-Europeans entered the mix with their ways of life. The Founding Fathers in their wisdom granted Congress and future generations the liberty to define for ourselves our posterity.

    You must go back.

    “But it will become more and more obvious, and the younger generations who will have never known the U.S. when it was a true nation will care less and less about this entity known as the United States.”

    You desperately HOPE that Generation Z and their offspring will endear themselves to have a total disdain for their own nation. You are further from the truth.

    You must go back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    I agree about the propositional nature of the American nation, but it only works with different ethnicities as long as they can be assimilated to the civic consensus. Unfortunately, the past 50 years have seen a move among ethnic minorities away from the notion of civic consensus, fostered by narrow self-interest and the rise of postmodernist ideology. We have ceased to function as the American nation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Corvinus says:
    @KenH
    We're told that we are the exceptional nation but in reality we've become a highly dysfunctional multicultural flophouse and our internal discord and cartoonish media has made us such a laughingstock that the rest of the world is probably slapping their knees. That's what happens when the country is run by a Jewish mafia from Hollywood, New York City and Tel Aviv on the Potomoc.

    No wonder Putin is just playing for time as he can see it's only a matter of time before the USSA implodes and collapses of its own dead weight just like the former USSR did.


    Are we really a better country today than we were then, when all the world looked to America as the land of the future?
     
    Hell no and I think anyone with a brain, which would exclude all loony lefties, knows it. America was 90% white and much more cohesive and sane in 1962 than it is in 2017. The divorce rate was low and feminism hadn't appeared to make women insane.

    Only a fool would think that a 50% divorce rate, ideological rancor, race hatred, gender confusion and division of 2017 is a marked improvement over pre-1965, pre-snivel rights bad old days.

    “That’s what happens when the country is run by a Jewish mafia from Hollywood, New York City and Tel Aviv on the Potomoc.”

    Man, have you been bamboozled.

    “America was 90% white and much more cohesive and sane in 1962 than it is in 2017. ”

    Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Thank you for your expression of gratitude. Such a rare thing these days, is it not?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. David says:
    @c matt
    It's only a superstition if it's not true.

    “Truth, thus held, is but one superstition the more, accidentally clinging to the words which enunciate a truth.”

    John Stuart Mill

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    "That’s what happens when the country is run by a Jewish mafia from Hollywood, New York City and Tel Aviv on the Potomoc."

    Man, have you been bamboozled.

    "America was 90% white and much more cohesive and sane in 1962 than it is in 2017. "

    Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

    Thank you for your expression of gratitude. Such a rare thing these days, is it not?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Talha
    Aye aye captain! I promise not to settle down in Malibu - you win! Please report your victory to the local chamber of commerce.

    Peace.

    Hi Talha. You are always a gentleman. It’s one or your many qualities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Mark,

    Thanks for the kind words. As I’ve stated before, any good reflected in me is the sign of God’s acceptance of the efforts and prayers of my parents and my teachers. All else is due to my own deficiencies.

    I initially thought bartok was being serious, but someone pointed out that was a movie quote!
    I was a bit shocked at first (I pondered what I could have said to make him so upset) but thought I might as well make the man happy at no cost to myself!

    Happy thanksgiving - and hoping to see more of your posts here at UNZ.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Talha says:
    @Mark Green
    Hi Talha. You are always a gentleman. It's one or your many qualities.

    Hey Mark,

    Thanks for the kind words. As I’ve stated before, any good reflected in me is the sign of God’s acceptance of the efforts and prayers of my parents and my teachers. All else is due to my own deficiencies.

    I initially thought bartok was being serious, but someone pointed out that was a movie quote!
    I was a bit shocked at first (I pondered what I could have said to make him so upset) but thought I might as well make the man happy at no cost to myself!

    Happy thanksgiving – and hoping to see more of your posts here at UNZ.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Clyde says:
    @Talha
    Ah OK - I thought he was being serious!!! LOL!

    I should have responded with; "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

    Peace.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/how-muslims-are-kept-mostly-peaceful-in-india/ These anti-Muslim nativist boobs are crying out for your correction. And if Muslim idiot invaders did not kill 80 million Hindus then give me your number. I will admit that many historical accounting of atrocities can be cut in half. And don’t turn down the ham at your in laws Thanksgiving table.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Clyde,

    I already told you that Matthew White at necrometrics crunched the numbers and came up with a very reasonable estimate of around 13 million - you can find his reasoning here:
    http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#MusConInd

    People eat ham at Thanksgiving? Is that normal or did Mr. Spencer start a new tradition as a protest against Muslim presence in the West?

    Happy thanksgiving.

    Peace.

    , @MEexpert
    Talha can cite numbers better than I can but these invaders cited by necrometrics were looters and robbers. They did not kill those people because they were Hindus. They came to plunder the wealth (gold and diamonds) that was stored in those temples. Mahmood Ghaznavi invaded India 17 times. Had the defenders been Muslims or any other denomination they would have suffered the same fate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Talha says:
    @Clyde
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/how-muslims-are-kept-mostly-peaceful-in-india/ These anti-Muslim nativist boobs are crying out for your correction. And if Muslim idiot invaders did not kill 80 million Hindus then give me your number. I will admit that many historical accounting of atrocities can be cut in half. And don't turn down the ham at your in laws Thanksgiving table.

    Hey Clyde,

    I already told you that Matthew White at necrometrics crunched the numbers and came up with a very reasonable estimate of around 13 million – you can find his reasoning here:

    http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#MusConInd

    People eat ham at Thanksgiving? Is that normal or did Mr. Spencer start a new tradition as a protest against Muslim presence in the West?

    Happy thanksgiving.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Much appreciated in the spirit of the Thanksgiving to Christmas season of reconciliation and thanks to God...more later. And good on yours.
    , @Clyde
    Ham is really for Christmas and in England the Christmas goose was traditional. For a Thanksgiving (USA) dinner with lots of family then a ham served along with a turkey is not uncommon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @anon
    "Since 1962, this nation has dethroned its God and begun debates about which of the flawed but great men who created the nation should be publicly dishonored. Are we really a better country today than we were then, when all the world looked to America as the land of the future?"


    This non sequitur is typical of Buchanan, and of many religious people. He always needs to blame anything bad on turning one's back on the superstitious nonsense which he believes. Our problems aren't due to not worshipping a God, but rather to lack of intelligence and character.

    “Our problems aren’t due to not worshipping a God, but rather to lack of intelligence and character.”

    Lack of intelligence and character is not a problem we can solve except through selective breeding – which is very unlikely to happen. For this reason, we need a God for the ignoramuses. They have to be conned into good behavior even when there is no significant risk of consequences for bad behavior

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Clyde says:
    @Talha
    Hey Clyde,

    I already told you that Matthew White at necrometrics crunched the numbers and came up with a very reasonable estimate of around 13 million - you can find his reasoning here:
    http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#MusConInd

    People eat ham at Thanksgiving? Is that normal or did Mr. Spencer start a new tradition as a protest against Muslim presence in the West?

    Happy thanksgiving.

    Peace.

    Much appreciated in the spirit of the Thanksgiving to Christmas season of reconciliation and thanks to God…more later. And good on yours.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @ThreeCranes
    Marion Barry wasn't the only male public figure whose career has revolved around cocaine use. The unacknowledged not-so-secret secret is that most of these Hollywood moguls and TV stars are avid users of the stuff. How much of their inappropriate behavior was driven by cocaine? Cocaine raises the sense of sexuality while at the same time lowering inhibitions. Just look what it did to Freud. He was so addled by the stuff that he imputed all human motives to sex.

    The problem is that while under the influence of a stimulant like coke or speed, a person does stuff which they later, when they come down, cannot justify existentially. They put themselves in positions that they are not willing to or are incapable of defending.

    So for example, Hitler, high on benzedrine, made decisions that a sane, sober man would not have made. Misled by his altered state of mind, by artificial confidence, Hitler boldly moved into areas that he could not defend. And this is not to be thought of as just Germany's occupation of the physical acreage of foreign territory. It is also psychic. He put himself and Germany in a psychic space that was indefensible. We see the same thing going on with Weinstein et al.

    Tell-all writers reveal that Wall St. booms from the 80's on were fueled by the ersatz self confidence of cocaine. And they too overreached; staked out more territory than they could defend. Then they crashed, in both the financial and in the coming-down-from-a-high-with-a-thump sense.

    Ironically, only the wealthy can afford a daily cocaine habit and so America's wealthy have become untethered from the limits, the checks and balances that impose negative feedback on the rest of us. They don't feel our pains because they are bedazzled and benumbed by drugs. The devil who dispensed elixirs to the privileged has come back for his payment. Rather than give up their first-born, the wealthy are tossing the underclass into his maw as sacrifices. Do they seriously believe that he will be satisfied with scape-goats?

    Ironically, only the wealthy can afford a daily cocaine habit and so America’s wealthy have become untethered from the limits, the checks and balances that impose negative feedback on the rest of us. They don’t feel our pains because they are bedazzled and benumbed by drugs.

    I wish that this were so, but it clearly isn’t. People of more moderate means become untethered with amphetamines and their analogs. Add in the widespread problems with opiates. Also alcohol has always been a major problem for us. Our Puritan forefathers were renown for drunkenness. Eisenhower was renown for “highballs” (whiskey mixed with water), and Franklin Roosevelt was notorious for mixing martinis for guests during prohibition.

    These other drugs also affect our awareness badly. The drug epidemic affects everyone. We have become disconnected, because we no longer have empathy for each other. The center is failing, and as a nation we are torn apart by centripetal forces.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. MEexpert says:
    @Clyde
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/how-muslims-are-kept-mostly-peaceful-in-india/ These anti-Muslim nativist boobs are crying out for your correction. And if Muslim idiot invaders did not kill 80 million Hindus then give me your number. I will admit that many historical accounting of atrocities can be cut in half. And don't turn down the ham at your in laws Thanksgiving table.

    Talha can cite numbers better than I can but these invaders cited by necrometrics were looters and robbers. They did not kill those people because they were Hindus. They came to plunder the wealth (gold and diamonds) that was stored in those temples. Mahmood Ghaznavi invaded India 17 times. Had the defenders been Muslims or any other denomination they would have suffered the same fate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Salaam bro,

    This is correct. I had a conversation with Marcus (where is that guy?) about this a while back and cited this from one of my sources:
    “The religious impetus of Mahmud’s Indian forays was minimal; he fought equally tenaciously against rival Muslim rulers and established permanent dominion in India only up to Lahore.”
    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-maya-who-woulda-thunk-it/#comment-1524428

    The Ghaznavids were Persianized Turks who still kept much of their raiding and pillaging ways. One interesting thing to note was that there were plenty of Hindus also in their administration and army, thus they were along for the loot. It’s not like India was some panacea of Hindu brotherly love and unity.

    I will say though, Tamerlane never really invaded India beyond some of the North, but had he ventured into and beyond the Gangetic Plain and into Central and South India (with its dense population) - I would readily accept a number around 25-30 million without contest.

    Wa salaam
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Talha says:
    @MEexpert
    Talha can cite numbers better than I can but these invaders cited by necrometrics were looters and robbers. They did not kill those people because they were Hindus. They came to plunder the wealth (gold and diamonds) that was stored in those temples. Mahmood Ghaznavi invaded India 17 times. Had the defenders been Muslims or any other denomination they would have suffered the same fate.

    Salaam bro,

    This is correct. I had a conversation with Marcus (where is that guy?) about this a while back and cited this from one of my sources:
    “The religious impetus of Mahmud’s Indian forays was minimal; he fought equally tenaciously against rival Muslim rulers and established permanent dominion in India only up to Lahore.”

    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-maya-who-woulda-thunk-it/#comment-1524428

    The Ghaznavids were Persianized Turks who still kept much of their raiding and pillaging ways. One interesting thing to note was that there were plenty of Hindus also in their administration and army, thus they were along for the loot. It’s not like India was some panacea of Hindu brotherly love and unity.

    I will say though, Tamerlane never really invaded India beyond some of the North, but had he ventured into and beyond the Gangetic Plain and into Central and South India (with its dense population) – I would readily accept a number around 25-30 million without contest.

    Wa salaam

    Read More
    • Agree: MEexpert
    • Replies: @Anon
    You mean "Utopia" rather than "panacea".

    With Mahmud of Ghazni, don't his biographers such as Utbi tend to dwell glowingly on his campaigns against the pagans, to offset his many less pious deeds (to put it mildly)? So saying his campaigns against Muslim rulers show that he wasn't involved in religious war sounds to me something like saying the Crusades when set against the backdrop of wars between various European states show that their religious impetus was not all that keen-- that is, it's correct in detail but questionable in emphasis. Of course emphasis is subjective and plunder was quite obviously a powerful motive.

    Mohammed of Ghor is another example who can be subjected to the same analysis. In his case though the name is really all you need. (/there_needs_to_be_a_black_humor_emoticon)

    RSDB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. DB Cooper says:
    @Godfree Roberts
    'That fall, in a surprise attack, Chinese troops poured through the passes in the Himalayas, invading India. China declared a truce in November but kept the territories it had occupied in Jammu and Kashmir.'
    Not much of a surprise! Chou en Lai had made at least three visits to Delhi, begging Nehru to call off his 'forward policy' (forward of the Line of Control–in other words, invasion of Chinese territory) to no avail. The memoir of an Australian diplomat, Gregory Clark, throws some light on the events:

    As with Vietnam, the real question which needs to be answered is howobvious facts of communist/anti-communist conflicts can be hidden and distorted for so long by the bureaucratic press and academic establishments which postwar Western societies have spawned. Maxwell, who wrote for The Times from New Delhi during the 1962 fighting, was the only correspondent there who refused to accept uncritically the official Indian account of events. This led to his virtual expulsion from the country. [India's China War. Neville Maxwell].

    My own experience as China desk officer in the Department ofExternal Affairs during 1962 may also be relevant.

    At the time it was not difficult to realise that something was very wrong with the Indian statement of their dispute with China. Peking had all but declared openly it would renounce its not inconsiderable claim to the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA), by far the largest and most valuable of the territories in dispute. Its claim to the Aksai Chin region inthe west seemed strong, and it was clearly moving towards an AksaiChin/NEFA exchange as a basis for settling the dispute.

    Delhi, however, rejected this highly favourable proposal, and demanded a complete Chinese evacuation of the Aksai Chin. To validate its claimto the area its historians produced an obviously false quotation from aBritish proposal to China in 1899. During 1962 India began openly tomove troops into the disputed territory to force the Chinese from posi-tions they already occupied. Chinese protestations that this would inevit-ably lead to serious clashes were ignored. The Chinese argument thatan evacuation of the Aksai Chin should in all fairness be matched by anIndian evacuation of the NEFA was dismissed.

    This in itself was remarkable enough, but Nehru then decided to go one step further and drive the Chinese out of territory to which India could not conceivably have any claim. At the western end of the McMahon Line which separates India and China in the NEFA there is a small wedge of territory known as the Dhola Strip. It was clear fromthe maps available before the fighting, and from the original of the McMahon Line circulated by the Chinese after the fighting began, that the area lay to the north of the McMahon Line. Even on the basis of co-ordinates given by the Indians the strip lay in Chinese territory.

    I should add that this was not simply my own conclusion; it was confirmed (or at least failed to be denied) by the competent authorities in both London and Washington at the time.

    Desk officers are responsible for initiating the processes by which information passes up the bureaucracy to the policy makers. Immediately after the Chinese move to repel the advancing Indians from Dhola Strip, however, Canberra came out with its denunciations of "Chinese aggression" and pledges of unconditional support to India.

    Nevertheless, the evidence of Indian duplicity was so overwhelming that a paper setting out the background to the dispute and recommending conditions on Australian aid to India was accepted up to a fairly high level in the Department. It was killed at the next rung on the bureaucratic ladder, however, on the grounds that it was 'not in the Australian interest to see any relaxation of tension between China and India'. The gentleman responsible for this wisdom was subsequently to oversee the first Australian commitment of troops to Vietnam.
     

    “Not much of a surprise! Chou en Lai had made at least three visits to Delhi, begging Nehru to call off his ‘forward policy’ (forward of the Line of Control–in other words, invasion of Chinese territory) to no avail. The memoir of an Australian diplomat, Gregory Clark, throws some light on the events: ”

    Godfree is right on the money on this one. Here are three independent sources that back up what Godfree said.

    http://gregoryclark.net/redif.html

    http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/news-events/podcasts/renewed-tension-indiachina-border-whos-blame

    The relevant part on the YouTube clip starts on 12:37. Sidney Rittenberg’s recollection is particularly revealing because it gives direct insights into the mindset of the Chinese leadership at that time regarding the war.

    The right way to think about India is not that it is a democracy and hence it is peaceful (empirically this is obviously not the case for many democracies in the world but I digress). The right way to think about India is that it is a British Raj wannabe and hence immediately after its creation in 1947 it pick up what the Raj had left and continue the old business of the expansionism of the Raj. The difference is that unlike India’s other neighbors China was able to fight back. India is the belligerent party. No doubt about it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Thanks for the Rittenberg link!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Salaam bro,

    This is correct. I had a conversation with Marcus (where is that guy?) about this a while back and cited this from one of my sources:
    “The religious impetus of Mahmud’s Indian forays was minimal; he fought equally tenaciously against rival Muslim rulers and established permanent dominion in India only up to Lahore.”
    http://www.unz.com/freed/the-maya-who-woulda-thunk-it/#comment-1524428

    The Ghaznavids were Persianized Turks who still kept much of their raiding and pillaging ways. One interesting thing to note was that there were plenty of Hindus also in their administration and army, thus they were along for the loot. It’s not like India was some panacea of Hindu brotherly love and unity.

    I will say though, Tamerlane never really invaded India beyond some of the North, but had he ventured into and beyond the Gangetic Plain and into Central and South India (with its dense population) - I would readily accept a number around 25-30 million without contest.

    Wa salaam

    You mean “Utopia” rather than “panacea”.

    With Mahmud of Ghazni, don’t his biographers such as Utbi tend to dwell glowingly on his campaigns against the pagans, to offset his many less pious deeds (to put it mildly)? So saying his campaigns against Muslim rulers show that he wasn’t involved in religious war sounds to me something like saying the Crusades when set against the backdrop of wars between various European states show that their religious impetus was not all that keen– that is, it’s correct in detail but questionable in emphasis. Of course emphasis is subjective and plunder was quite obviously a powerful motive.

    Mohammed of Ghor is another example who can be subjected to the same analysis. In his case though the name is really all you need. (/there_needs_to_be_a_black_humor_emoticon)

    RSDB

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Yes "utopia" would have been a better choice.

    don’t his biographers such as Utbi tend to dwell glowingly on his campaigns against the pagans
     
    I'm sure there was some religious motivation there - no doubt, the question is; how seriously do we want to take it? How much weight should we give to the words of a court historian who wants to make his patron seem like the "great mujahid who gave victory to Islam by vanquishing the hordes of kuffar" and such? Should we take "Operation Iraqi Freedom" at its word because that's what the White House labeled it? I tend to side with modern historians when looking at actions trying to determine motivations.

    The Crusaders are a good contrast. I tend to look at them with nuance also. Some of them were obviously motivated by religion, others - not so much. You can see it in their actions. I mean, the fourth Crusade ended up with a Latin army besieging and sacking two Christian cities; Zara (Catholic) and Constantinople (Orthodox). So you tell me.

    “The position of Hindu generals, soldiers, and scholars at the Ghaznavid court is also significant. Even Mahmud, the iconoclast, had a contingent of Hindu officers and soldiers. He richly rewarded at least one Sanskrit poet, and had Hindu pandits at his court. ...The Hindu position seems to have improved greatly in the days of his successor, Masud. Only fifty days after the death of Mahmud, his son despatched Sewand Rai, a Hindu chief, with a large body of Hindu cavalry in pursuit of the nobles who had espoused the cause of his brother. Sewand Rai died in the ensuing battle, but his selection for this important assignment indicates his position of trust and eminence…contemporary evidence suggests that the Hindu position under the Ghaznavids was very much better than it was to be in the early days of the Delhi Sultanate.”
    http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/part1_02.html

    I pulled "Armies of the Caliphates 862-1098" off the shelf by my favorite military historian, Prof. David Nicolle. Under the chapter "Recruitment" he mentions that the Ghaznavids were known for hiring Buddhist and Hindu soldiers from India.

    Were there Muslim generals working for the Crusaders? Did they actively recruit Muslims into their armies?

    So one looks at these details and comes to their own conclusion.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Talha says:
    @Anon
    You mean "Utopia" rather than "panacea".

    With Mahmud of Ghazni, don't his biographers such as Utbi tend to dwell glowingly on his campaigns against the pagans, to offset his many less pious deeds (to put it mildly)? So saying his campaigns against Muslim rulers show that he wasn't involved in religious war sounds to me something like saying the Crusades when set against the backdrop of wars between various European states show that their religious impetus was not all that keen-- that is, it's correct in detail but questionable in emphasis. Of course emphasis is subjective and plunder was quite obviously a powerful motive.

    Mohammed of Ghor is another example who can be subjected to the same analysis. In his case though the name is really all you need. (/there_needs_to_be_a_black_humor_emoticon)

    RSDB

    Yes “utopia” would have been a better choice.

    don’t his biographers such as Utbi tend to dwell glowingly on his campaigns against the pagans

    I’m sure there was some religious motivation there – no doubt, the question is; how seriously do we want to take it? How much weight should we give to the words of a court historian who wants to make his patron seem like the “great mujahid who gave victory to Islam by vanquishing the hordes of kuffar” and such? Should we take “Operation Iraqi Freedom” at its word because that’s what the White House labeled it? I tend to side with modern historians when looking at actions trying to determine motivations.

    The Crusaders are a good contrast. I tend to look at them with nuance also. Some of them were obviously motivated by religion, others – not so much. You can see it in their actions. I mean, the fourth Crusade ended up with a Latin army besieging and sacking two Christian cities; Zara (Catholic) and Constantinople (Orthodox). So you tell me.

    “The position of Hindu generals, soldiers, and scholars at the Ghaznavid court is also significant. Even Mahmud, the iconoclast, had a contingent of Hindu officers and soldiers. He richly rewarded at least one Sanskrit poet, and had Hindu pandits at his court. …The Hindu position seems to have improved greatly in the days of his successor, Masud. Only fifty days after the death of Mahmud, his son despatched Sewand Rai, a Hindu chief, with a large body of Hindu cavalry in pursuit of the nobles who had espoused the cause of his brother. Sewand Rai died in the ensuing battle, but his selection for this important assignment indicates his position of trust and eminence…contemporary evidence suggests that the Hindu position under the Ghaznavids was very much better than it was to be in the early days of the Delhi Sultanate.”

    http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/part1_02.html

    I pulled “Armies of the Caliphates 862-1098″ off the shelf by my favorite military historian, Prof. David Nicolle. Under the chapter “Recruitment” he mentions that the Ghaznavids were known for hiring Buddhist and Hindu soldiers from India.

    Were there Muslim generals working for the Crusaders? Did they actively recruit Muslims into their armies?

    So one looks at these details and comes to their own conclusion.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    I mean, the fourth Crusade ended up with a Latin army besieging and sacking two Christian cities; Zara (Catholic) and Constantinople (Orthodox).
     
    The original intent was to go to Egypt. Hungary was attacked to satisfy the Venetians, who argued that Zara had been unjustly taken from them. Nevertheless the Crusaders who joined the attack (many quit) were excommunicated. By the time the Crusaders got involved with the Greeks who were promising all sorts of things related to the actual Crusade, any semblance of organized purpose had gone off over the horizon.

    Were there Muslim generals working for the Crusaders? Did they actively recruit Muslims into their armies?
     
    I don't know; they certainly went to battle on occasion with allied Muslim contingents though.

    Should we take “Operation Iraqi Freedom” at its word because that’s what the White House labeled it?
     
    Not for the White House-- but for a lot of the soldiers and American civilians, sure. I think this is actually very probably a pretty good analogy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Yes "utopia" would have been a better choice.

    don’t his biographers such as Utbi tend to dwell glowingly on his campaigns against the pagans
     
    I'm sure there was some religious motivation there - no doubt, the question is; how seriously do we want to take it? How much weight should we give to the words of a court historian who wants to make his patron seem like the "great mujahid who gave victory to Islam by vanquishing the hordes of kuffar" and such? Should we take "Operation Iraqi Freedom" at its word because that's what the White House labeled it? I tend to side with modern historians when looking at actions trying to determine motivations.

    The Crusaders are a good contrast. I tend to look at them with nuance also. Some of them were obviously motivated by religion, others - not so much. You can see it in their actions. I mean, the fourth Crusade ended up with a Latin army besieging and sacking two Christian cities; Zara (Catholic) and Constantinople (Orthodox). So you tell me.

    “The position of Hindu generals, soldiers, and scholars at the Ghaznavid court is also significant. Even Mahmud, the iconoclast, had a contingent of Hindu officers and soldiers. He richly rewarded at least one Sanskrit poet, and had Hindu pandits at his court. ...The Hindu position seems to have improved greatly in the days of his successor, Masud. Only fifty days after the death of Mahmud, his son despatched Sewand Rai, a Hindu chief, with a large body of Hindu cavalry in pursuit of the nobles who had espoused the cause of his brother. Sewand Rai died in the ensuing battle, but his selection for this important assignment indicates his position of trust and eminence…contemporary evidence suggests that the Hindu position under the Ghaznavids was very much better than it was to be in the early days of the Delhi Sultanate.”
    http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/part1_02.html

    I pulled "Armies of the Caliphates 862-1098" off the shelf by my favorite military historian, Prof. David Nicolle. Under the chapter "Recruitment" he mentions that the Ghaznavids were known for hiring Buddhist and Hindu soldiers from India.

    Were there Muslim generals working for the Crusaders? Did they actively recruit Muslims into their armies?

    So one looks at these details and comes to their own conclusion.

    Peace.

    I mean, the fourth Crusade ended up with a Latin army besieging and sacking two Christian cities; Zara (Catholic) and Constantinople (Orthodox).

    The original intent was to go to Egypt. Hungary was attacked to satisfy the Venetians, who argued that Zara had been unjustly taken from them. Nevertheless the Crusaders who joined the attack (many quit) were excommunicated. By the time the Crusaders got involved with the Greeks who were promising all sorts of things related to the actual Crusade, any semblance of organized purpose had gone off over the horizon.

    Were there Muslim generals working for the Crusaders? Did they actively recruit Muslims into their armies?

    I don’t know; they certainly went to battle on occasion with allied Muslim contingents though.

    Should we take “Operation Iraqi Freedom” at its word because that’s what the White House labeled it?

    Not for the White House– but for a lot of the soldiers and American civilians, sure. I think this is actually very probably a pretty good analogy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Clyde says:
    @Talha
    Hey Clyde,

    I already told you that Matthew White at necrometrics crunched the numbers and came up with a very reasonable estimate of around 13 million - you can find his reasoning here:
    http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#MusConInd

    People eat ham at Thanksgiving? Is that normal or did Mr. Spencer start a new tradition as a protest against Muslim presence in the West?

    Happy thanksgiving.

    Peace.

    Ham is really for Christmas and in England the Christmas goose was traditional. For a Thanksgiving (USA) dinner with lots of family then a ham served along with a turkey is not uncommon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Thirdeye says:
    @Talha
    Hey ThreeCranes,

    The unacknowledged not-so-secret secret is that most of these Hollywood moguls and TV stars are avid users of the stuff.
     
    I used to work in an startup during the .com boom (who didn't) where one of our guys was a lawyer that used to work on legal teams for these Hollywood big shots. He described what the parties were like; huge mansions, plenty of young topless women in the pool, lines of cocaine everywhere for people to use, etc. - really crazy "Hedonist Central" stuff. That was kind of expected, then he told us, all the cops knew about it, but nobody did a thing.

    Guess that's probably a good thing -since it was all on private residence. Though I doubt they would have taken that laissez faire approach with the average working man.

    Peace.

    Though I doubt they would have taken that laissez faire approach with the average working man.

    The so-called War on Drugs was always directed against the average working man. I see a lot of parallels between it and the enforced puritanism in the workplace that took hold during the 1980s. Allegations of sexual harassment could pretty much come out of thin air when somebody saw it to their advantage in a workplace conflict. The Hollywood sexual harassment scandal, which #metoo has transformed into a general moral panic, illustrates just how different the rules are for those at the bottom and the top of the food chain. Maybe moving the witch hunt to the top levels of power will enlighten people as to the ridiculousness of the environment the ordinary working man has been in for the past 30 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Excellent points.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Thirdeye says:
    @Corvinus
    "Not only are we not an “exceptional nation,” we’re not a nation at all. A nation is a people with a share ethnicity, culture and history. It’s difficult to imagine too many countries less like a nation than the United States."

    Peddling more nonsense yet again. The United States is a nation. It was founded at first by colonists from various European countries, each of whom spoke different languages and had their own customs. Slowly, but surely, these groups of people created a unique culture. Eventually, non-Europeans entered the mix with their ways of life. The Founding Fathers in their wisdom granted Congress and future generations the liberty to define for ourselves our posterity.

    You must go back.

    "But it will become more and more obvious, and the younger generations who will have never known the U.S. when it was a true nation will care less and less about this entity known as the United States."

    You desperately HOPE that Generation Z and their offspring will endear themselves to have a total disdain for their own nation. You are further from the truth.

    You must go back.

    I agree about the propositional nature of the American nation, but it only works with different ethnicities as long as they can be assimilated to the civic consensus. Unfortunately, the past 50 years have seen a move among ethnic minorities away from the notion of civic consensus, fostered by narrow self-interest and the rise of postmodernist ideology. We have ceased to function as the American nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Unfortunately, the past 50 years have seen a move among ethnic minorities away from the notion of civic consensus, fostered by narrow self-interest and the rise of postmodernist ideology. We have ceased to function as the American nation."

    You are hyperventilating. Here is a virtual brown paper bag. Civic consensus among post-1965 immigrants is on par with past immigrant groups.

    https://fee.org/articles/are-immigrants-still-assimilating-in-america
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. The Pentagon is likely to announce in the coming days that there are about 2,000 US troops in Syria, rather than the 500 the military has said are in the war-torn country. Two US officials detailed the new figure on Friday, as the military acknowledges that an accounting system has underreported the size of forces on the ground.

    From The Guardian. Just how seriously do these liar clowns expect to be taken?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. Talha says:
    @Thirdeye

    Though I doubt they would have taken that laissez faire approach with the average working man.
     
    The so-called War on Drugs was always directed against the average working man. I see a lot of parallels between it and the enforced puritanism in the workplace that took hold during the 1980s. Allegations of sexual harassment could pretty much come out of thin air when somebody saw it to their advantage in a workplace conflict. The Hollywood sexual harassment scandal, which #metoo has transformed into a general moral panic, illustrates just how different the rules are for those at the bottom and the top of the food chain. Maybe moving the witch hunt to the top levels of power will enlighten people as to the ridiculousness of the environment the ordinary working man has been in for the past 30 years.

    Excellent points.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Ah OK - I thought he was being serious!!! LOL!

    I should have responded with; "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

    Peace.

    you’re not wrong, talha, you’re just an asshole…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hmmmm...didn't you mean..."you’re not ONLY wrong, talha, you’re ALSO an asshole..."?

    Because that would have been more effective, don't you think? And you could have added...

    "...and you look like your butt, and you smell like your butt and you eat butts - with your butt."

    Please help me to help you become a better commenter.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Talha says:
    @anon
    you're not wrong, talha, you're just an asshole...

    Hmmmm…didn’t you mean…”you’re not ONLY wrong, talha, you’re ALSO an asshole…”?

    Because that would have been more effective, don’t you think? And you could have added…

    “…and you look like your butt, and you smell like your butt and you eat butts – with your butt.”

    Please help me to help you become a better commenter.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    Please help me to help you become a better commenter.
     
    I stopped taking him seriously after I read what the disclaimer after his name meant. Best way to deal with people like that is to ignore them. Don't bring yourself to his level. It is not worth it. He picks up some information on the internet and thinks he is an expert. He argues with people who have first hand knowledge of the situation. He is a troll. He will argue both sides of the issue. He may even have split personality. Who knows.

    Talha, you are much too smart to come down to his level. People like him, when they have no valid arguments, resort to name calling. No matter what you do, he will never become a good commenter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Corvinus says:
    @Thirdeye
    I agree about the propositional nature of the American nation, but it only works with different ethnicities as long as they can be assimilated to the civic consensus. Unfortunately, the past 50 years have seen a move among ethnic minorities away from the notion of civic consensus, fostered by narrow self-interest and the rise of postmodernist ideology. We have ceased to function as the American nation.

    “Unfortunately, the past 50 years have seen a move among ethnic minorities away from the notion of civic consensus, fostered by narrow self-interest and the rise of postmodernist ideology. We have ceased to function as the American nation.”

    You are hyperventilating. Here is a virtual brown paper bag. Civic consensus among post-1965 immigrants is on par with past immigrant groups.

    https://fee.org/articles/are-immigrants-still-assimilating-in-america

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. MEexpert says:
    @Talha
    Hmmmm...didn't you mean..."you’re not ONLY wrong, talha, you’re ALSO an asshole..."?

    Because that would have been more effective, don't you think? And you could have added...

    "...and you look like your butt, and you smell like your butt and you eat butts - with your butt."

    Please help me to help you become a better commenter.

    Peace.

    Please help me to help you become a better commenter.

    I stopped taking him seriously after I read what the disclaimer after his name meant. Best way to deal with people like that is to ignore them. Don’t bring yourself to his level. It is not worth it. He picks up some information on the internet and thinks he is an expert. He argues with people who have first hand knowledge of the situation. He is a troll. He will argue both sides of the issue. He may even have split personality. Who knows.

    Talha, you are much too smart to come down to his level. People like him, when they have no valid arguments, resort to name calling. No matter what you do, he will never become a good commenter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RSDB

    He picks up some information on the internet and thinks he is an expert.
     
    What are you on about?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Talha says:

    Salaam bro,

    Yeah – don’t take that comment too seriously – I was kind of trolling him back. ;)

    I do wish people would pick a handle and stick with it – this “anon” stuff is difficult to keep up with. It could have been the same person or even an UNZ regular or could be a completely new guy – like a 12 year old from Podunk, IN.

    Wa salaam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RSDB

    It could have been the same person
     
    As who? Me*? It wasn't. Frankly I don't see any problem with the anon system-- throwaway handles would be as easy to use for that sort of thing and more difficult to keep track of.

    *I really don't know who the Expert is on about. I have a feeling it's me in this thread, but nothing he says makes any sense on that hypothesis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. RSDB says:
    @MEexpert

    Please help me to help you become a better commenter.
     
    I stopped taking him seriously after I read what the disclaimer after his name meant. Best way to deal with people like that is to ignore them. Don't bring yourself to his level. It is not worth it. He picks up some information on the internet and thinks he is an expert. He argues with people who have first hand knowledge of the situation. He is a troll. He will argue both sides of the issue. He may even have split personality. Who knows.

    Talha, you are much too smart to come down to his level. People like him, when they have no valid arguments, resort to name calling. No matter what you do, he will never become a good commenter.

    He picks up some information on the internet and thinks he is an expert.

    What are you on about?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    What are you on about?
     
    What am I on about?????? I don't even know what you are talking about.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. MEexpert says:
    @RSDB

    He picks up some information on the internet and thinks he is an expert.
     
    What are you on about?

    What are you on about?

    What am I on about?????? I don’t even know what you are talking about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RSDB
    I was asking you to explain what you meant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. RSDB says:
    @MEexpert

    What are you on about?
     
    What am I on about?????? I don't even know what you are talking about.

    I was asking you to explain what you meant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    I was asking you to explain what you meant.
     
    If you mean about my comments about "anon," I can explain. anon is a troll. He/she is not one person as evident by conflicting comments he posts. He looks up information from Wikipedia or similar other outlets and presents them as authoritative sources. He is all over the place with his comments. Furthermore, Unz Review confirms my observation by adding the "disclaimer" to his name. I don't take people like that seriously since they have no personal knowledge of the situation.

    I hope this answers your question because I don't want to waste any more of your time or my time. Thanks for asking.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. RSDB says:
    @Talha
    Salaam bro,

    Yeah - don’t take that comment too seriously - I was kind of trolling him back. ;)

    I do wish people would pick a handle and stick with it - this “anon” stuff is difficult to keep up with. It could have been the same person or even an UNZ regular or could be a completely new guy - like a 12 year old from Podunk, IN.

    Wa salaam.

    It could have been the same person

    As who? Me*? It wasn’t. Frankly I don’t see any problem with the anon system– throwaway handles would be as easy to use for that sort of thing and more difficult to keep track of.

    *I really don’t know who the Expert is on about. I have a feeling it’s me in this thread, but nothing he says makes any sense on that hypothesis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Bro, I’m just really confused at this point. I wasn’t blaming anybody - I just took that comment at it's face value.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    It could have been the same person
     
    As who? Me*? It wasn't. Frankly I don't see any problem with the anon system-- throwaway handles would be as easy to use for that sort of thing and more difficult to keep track of.

    *I really don't know who the Expert is on about. I have a feeling it's me in this thread, but nothing he says makes any sense on that hypothesis.

    Bro, I’m just really confused at this point. I wasn’t blaming anybody – I just took that comment at it’s face value.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. MEexpert says:
    @RSDB
    I was asking you to explain what you meant.

    I was asking you to explain what you meant.

    If you mean about my comments about “anon,” I can explain. anon is a troll. He/she is not one person as evident by conflicting comments he posts. He looks up information from Wikipedia or similar other outlets and presents them as authoritative sources. He is all over the place with his comments. Furthermore, Unz Review confirms my observation by adding the “disclaimer” to his name. I don’t take people like that seriously since they have no personal knowledge of the situation.

    I hope this answers your question because I don’t want to waste any more of your time or my time. Thanks for asking.

    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?