The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Pat Buchanan ArchiveBlogview
What Is America's Goal in the World?
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Strings  Include Comments

For the World War II generation there was clarity.

The attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec 7, 1941, united the nation as it had never been before — in the conviction that Japan must be smashed, no matter how long it took or how many lives it cost.

After the defeat of the Axis powers in 1945, however, Americans divided.

Only with the Berlin Blockade of 1948, the fall of China to Mao and Russia’s explosion of an atom bomb in 1949, and North Korea’s invasion of the South in 1950, did we unite around the proposition that, for our own security, we had to go back to Europe and Asia.

What was called the Cold War consensus — that only America could “contain” Stalin’s empire — led to NATO and new U.S. alliances from the Elbe to the East China Sea.

Vietnam, however, shattered that Cold War consensus.

The far left of the Democratic Party that had taken us into Vietnam had repudiated the war by 1968, and switched sides to sympathize with such Third World communists as Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Ho Chi Minh and the Sandinistas.

Center-right presidents — JFK, Nixon, Reagan — accepted the need to cooperate with dictators who would side with us in fighting Communism.

And we did. Park Chung-Hee in Korea. The Shah in Iran. President Diem in Saigon. Gen. Franco in Spain. Somoza in Nicaragua. Gen. Mobuto in the Congo. Gen. Pinochet in Chile. Ferdinand Marcos in Manila. The list goes on.

Under Reagan, the Soviet Empire finally fell apart and the USSR then disintegrated in one of the epochal events of history.

The American Century had ended in America’s triumph.

Yet, after 1989, no new national consensus emerged over what ought to be our role in the World. What should we stand for? What should we fight for?

What Dean Acheson had said of our cousins in 1962: “Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role,” was true of us.

What was our role in the world, now that the Cold War was history?

George H.W. Bush took us to war to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Soaring to 90 percent approval, he declared America’s new role was to construct a New World Order.

Those who opposed him, Bush acidly dismissed in Hawaii on Dec. 7, 1991, the 50th anniversary of Pearl Harbor:

“We stand here today on the site of a tragedy spawned by isolationism. … And it is here we must learn — and this time avoid — the dangers of today’s isolationism and its … accomplice, protectionism.”

Neither Bush nor his New World Order survived the next November.

Then came payback for our sanctions that had brought death to thousands of Iraqis, and for the U.S. bases we had foolishly planted on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia — Sept. 11, 2001.

George W. Bush reacted by launching the two longest wars in our history, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and announced that our new role was to “end tyranny in our world.”

The Bush II crusade for global democracy also fizzled out.

Barack Obama tried to extricate us from Afghanistan and Iraq. But he, too, failed, and got us into wars in Yemen and Syria, and then started his own war in Libya, producing yet another failed state.

What does the balance sheet of post-Cold War interventions look like?

Since 1991, we have lost our global preeminence, quadrupled our national debt, and gotten ourselves mired in five Mideast wars, with the neocons clamoring for a sixth, with Iran.

With the New World Order and global democracy having been abandoned as America’s great goals, what is the new goal of U.S. foreign policy? What is the strategy to achieve it? Does anyone know?

Globalists say we should stand for a “rules-based world order.” Not exactly “Remember the Alamo!” or “Remember Pearl Harbor!”

A quarter century after the Cold War, we remain committed to 60-year-old Cold War alliances to defend scores of nations on the other side of the world. Consider some of the places where America collides today with nuclear powers: the DMZ, the Senkakus, Scarborough Shoal, Crimea, the Donbass.

What is vital to us in any of these venues to justify sending an American army to fight, or risking a nuclear war?

We have lost control of our destiny. We have lost the freedom our Founding Fathers implored us to maintain — the freedom to stay out of wars of foreign counties on faraway continents.

Like the British and French empires, the American imperium is not sustainable. We have issued so many war guarantees it is almost assured that we will be dragged into every future great crisis and conflict on the planet.

If we do not review and discard some of these war guarantees, we shall never know peace. Donald Trump once seemed to understand this. Does he still?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, out May 9, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Of Related Interest
If One Arm is Right, the Other Will Be Left, No?
shutterstock_639124459
Everyone Loves the Troops and Their Generals, But History Indicates That Military Advice Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up to Be
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. I disagree that only the Republican presidents defeated the Russian goal of world domination. All presidents from Truman to Reagan (with the possible exception of Pres. Carter) did what had to be done to defeat Russia without precipitating a nuclear holocaust.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Floda
    Yes, but why try to 'defeat' Russia today? Cui Bono? Why not do what Trump proposed during his campaign, co-operate with Russia in restoring peace to the ME? As far as I can see the 'swamp' is firmly against Trump keeping his word in that respect and may even have the goods on him in a blackmail sense.
    , @Realist
    "I disagree that only the Republican presidents defeated the Russian goal of world domination. "

    You're conflating Russia and the Soviet Union.

    No country has been more hegemonic that the US

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/what-is-americas-goal-in-the-world/#comment-1869008
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. There are military wars. US won most of them. Even when US lost, the other side suffered far more damage than the US. It’s been said US lost the Vietnam War, but compare what happened to US with what happened to Vietnam. It’s like George Kennedy’s loss to Paul Newman in COOL HAND LUKE.

    Some might say US lost in Iraq too, but US was untouched by the war. Iraq is a total mess.

    But there is a war more crucial than military wars. The Invisible War. The power within the US has been determined by the Invisible War. And it was this War, more than the Cold War, that shaped the future of the world. USSR was once a world power, but it failed to win the hearts and minds or the loins and groins of the masses of the world. So, once the USSR collapsed, the question was which group in America would get to determine America’s lone-superpower agenda for the entire world?

    This Invisible War mattered a great deal because US is ethnically diverse.
    All nations have Invisible Wars among various groups contending for dominance, but in a homogeneous nation, the dominant race-and-culture of that nation is in charge regardless of which side wins. Suppose there are various factions vying for power in China. Whichever wins, China is controlled by Chinese.

    And it used to be like that in the US. For awhile, the only major groups vying for power were all white Protestants, or Wasps. But then, waves of immigration added new groups to the contest of power.
    And something fundamentally changed since the 60s.
    The Invisible War came down to Wasps and Jews. This was fought in the realm of media, academia, arts, culture, finance, ideas, and various industries. But it wasn’t a simple ‘war’ between two ethnic groups in the way that Italian gangs might fight Irish gangs.
    Invisible War happens in the realm of ideas, so the other side could be turned to serve your side. Their minds could be colonized by the ideas of your side.
    So, over time, more and more Wasps came to be won over to the Jewish side. Most Liberal Wasps came under domination of Jewish politics. And in time, most Wasp conservative figures came to be mentally-colonized by Neocon thought. Jews won not only by conflict but by conversion.

    So, Jews won the Invisible War in America, and their agenda has been turning the world upside down with Wars for Israel, Open Borders, anti-nativitism, pro-invasivism, Homomania, crazy feminism, and Afromania.

    It’s a strange agenda. At its core, it is tribal and ethno-supremacist, but it is promoted as ‘western values’, ‘human rights’, or ‘universal principles’, all vague notions manipulated and distorted in meaning to serve an agenda that aligns with Jewish supremacist machinations.
    So, this ‘universal values’ requires the US to make life hell for Muslims over there but hug them like long-lost brothers over here. It’s seems crazy and illogical, but once you understand the Power it really serves, what seems like contradictions on the surface make perfect sense at the core.

    Read More
    • Agree: Druid
    • Replies: @bjondo
    Worth repeating:

    And something fundamentally changed since the 60s.
    The Invisible War came down to Wasps and Jews. This was fought in the realm of media, academia, arts, culture, finance, ideas, and various industries. But it wasn’t a simple ‘war’ between two ethnic groups in the way that Italian gangs might fight Irish gangs.
    Invisible War happens in the realm of ideas, so the other side could be turned to serve your side. Their minds could be colonized by the ideas of your side.
    So, over time, more and more Wasps came to be won over to the Jewish side. Most Liberal Wasps came under domination of Jewish politics. And in time, most Wasp conservative figures came to be mentally-colonized by Neocon thought. Jews won not only by conflict but by conversion.

    So, Jews won the Invisible War in America, and their agenda has been turning the world upside down with Wars for Israel, Open Borders, anti-nativitism, pro-invasivism, Homomania, crazy feminism, and Afromania.

    It’s a strange agenda. At its core, it is tribal and ethno-supremacist, but it is promoted as ‘western values’, ‘human rights’, or ‘universal principles’, all vague notions manipulated and distorted in meaning to serve an agenda that aligns with Jewish supremacist machinations.
    So, this ‘universal values’ requires the US to make life hell for Muslims over there but hug them like long-lost brothers over here. It’s seems crazy and illogical, but once you understand the Power it really serves, what seems like contradictions on the surface make perfect sense at the core.
     
    , @Igor Bundy
    What the US lost was respect and the Gold standard, now US$ is backed up by faith and that is eroding fast. When she blows, you are going to see the biggest fire works in history.
  3. Perhaps President Trump once seemed to understand that the US can’t guarantee freedom and security of free rider nations that don’t want to defend themselves. Whether they are willing to pay more for their security remains to be seen. It seems that the Deep State got the Trump presidency where they wanted it: Anti-Russian and Anti-Iranian. I hope Trump is not that stupid to be dragged into an attack on Iran by the right-wing Netanyahu regime or to intervene in Syria on behalf of the evilest regime in the whole Middle East: Saudi Arabia. Trump should tell Netanyahu and the Saudi dictator if you want to topple the Mullah- or the al-Assad regime goes ahead and does it yourselves. The US should dissolve many of its outdated alliances and should tell European NATO members to defend themselves against any hallucinated enemy. Not Russia is threatening Europe but NATO is the largest threat to Russia because the alliance extended right to the Russian border and the Germany are again close to “Stalingrad”. NATO is no longer a security alliance but rather an aggressive alliance for war and expansion. Trump should abandon it.

    Read More
  4. @Dave Shanken
    I disagree that only the Republican presidents defeated the Russian goal of world domination. All presidents from Truman to Reagan (with the possible exception of Pres. Carter) did what had to be done to defeat Russia without precipitating a nuclear holocaust.

    Yes, but why try to ‘defeat’ Russia today? Cui Bono? Why not do what Trump proposed during his campaign, co-operate with Russia in restoring peace to the ME? As far as I can see the ‘swamp’ is firmly against Trump keeping his word in that respect and may even have the goods on him in a blackmail sense.

    Read More
  5. “What Is America’s Goal in the World?”

    Total domination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Insofar as American elites are concerned, your answer sums it up quite nicely.
  6. @Dave Shanken
    I disagree that only the Republican presidents defeated the Russian goal of world domination. All presidents from Truman to Reagan (with the possible exception of Pres. Carter) did what had to be done to defeat Russia without precipitating a nuclear holocaust.

    “I disagree that only the Republican presidents defeated the Russian goal of world domination. ”

    You’re conflating Russia and the Soviet Union.

    No country has been more hegemonic that the US

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "No country has been more hegemonic that the US."

    The British up until the 1950's would have something say about it in light of their vast colonial empire crumbling. Remember, the United States for most of its history has been an isolationist/neutral nation. It was post-World War II that has America employed the "invade the world, invite the world" strategy.
  7. “The far left of the Democratic Party that had taken us into Vietnam…”

    “During his term, Eisenhower will greatly increase U.S. military aid to the French in Vietnam to prevent a Communist victory. U.S. military advisors will continue to accompany American supplies sent to Vietnam. To justify America’s commitment, Eisenhower will cite a ‘Domino Theory’ in which a Communist victory in Vietnam would result in surrounding countries falling one after another like a ‘falling row of dominoes’. The Domino Theory will be used by a succession of Presidents and their advisors to justify ever-deepening U.S. involvement in Vietnam.”

    http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html

    So, in complete honesty, who “took” us to Vietnam?

    Pat Buchanan is not an historian. He is a propagandist with an agenda to persuade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Agreed. What a load of nonsense he wrote about Saudi Arabia and Sept 11. Ha! As if...
  8. Dear Mr Buchanan,

    You do not need to write just for the sake of writing.

    Sincerely,

    JS

    Read More
  9. Any country, family, tribe, organization etc. on the rise is driven by the shared concern of expanding the pie. But once the pie gets big enough, the major concern of most participants is increasing their own personal share of the pie. Thus whether or not America has a goal in the world, the goal of the deep state participants is to enrich themselves – to keep the gravy train rolling. If only one does this, it will not harm the overall much but when most are more problem than solution, the pie starts to shrink.

    Read More
  10. Working with dictators is a hell of a lot different than orchestrating coups to remove elected leaders and then installing the US dictator of choice.

    Read More
  11. Wars are always started by a small handful of people at the very top of the decision making process.

    World War II was started in the same fashion starting with FDR, Winston Churchill, Lord Halifax, and Josef Beck of Poland.

    A lot of what Americans believe about WWII is complete rubbish and is still maintained to make Americans look like the “good guys”.

    Every US war since has been initiated by small groups of people who drag the rest of the world along into their own misery.

    The United States never had a legitimate vision of itself and its supposed “Founding Fathers” designed a system to maintain their own wealth.

    The terrible, national decisions made throughout the lifetime of the American nation have borne this out becoming only increasingly worse and more dangerous as we entered the modern ages.

    H. L. Mencken once said that “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of American people…” American leadership has always shown this to be an axiom of our national delusions of ourselves…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "World War II was started in the same fashion starting with FDR, Winston Churchill, Lord Halifax, and Josef Beck of Poland."

    World War II began with the imperialistic endeavors of Japan and the revenge at all cost machinations of Adolf Hitler.

    "A lot of what Americans believe about WWII is complete rubbish and is still maintained to make Americans look like the “good guys”."

    The Americans are the GREAT guys. By chance are you German?

    "Every US war since has been initiated by small groups of people who drag the rest of the world along into their own misery."

    How does the War of 1812 fit into your world view?

    "The United States never had a legitimate vision of itself and its supposed “Founding Fathers” designed a system to maintain their own wealth."

    Never, huh? That's a strong word to use. How do you know?
    , @jacques sheete

    Wars are always started by a small handful of people at the very top of the decision making process.
     
    My reading of history leads me to the same conclusion. It's a basic fact that everyone should understand.

    The United States never had a legitimate vision of itself and its supposed “Founding Fathers” designed a system to maintain their own wealth.
     
    Exactly. From the perspective of freedom for the masses, it was a fraud from the start. A huge swindle, in fact. The suckers who fought and paid for the thing merely traded one yoke for another, and we saps are still paying.
  12. “The far left of the Democratic Party that had taken us into Vietnam … Center-right presidents — JFK …

    But Vietnam was Kennedy’s war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @englishmike
    But Vietnam was Kennedy’s war.

    It was Kennedy's before it was LBJ's and Nixon's. But did you not read the comment by "Eustace Tilley (not)" - above - which suggests that first it was Eisenhower's?
  13. We might try peace and prosperity. Trade and diplomacy. I love you Pat. But you are an imperialist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    But you are an imperialist.
     
    Huh? Pat has consistently opposed our interventionalist, imperial foreign policies in his articles including this one. He also wrote a book titled A Republic, not an Empire and was effectively banished as a guest on FOX News when he opposed Iraq War II and defended Iran from unwarranted attacks by the neocons.

    I don't what he has said or done to prompt you to make that claim.
    , @Astuteobservor II
    haahah :P right on.
  14. @Realist
    "I disagree that only the Republican presidents defeated the Russian goal of world domination. "

    You're conflating Russia and the Soviet Union.

    No country has been more hegemonic that the US

    “No country has been more hegemonic that the US.”

    The British up until the 1950′s would have something say about it in light of their vast colonial empire crumbling. Remember, the United States for most of its history has been an isolationist/neutral nation. It was post-World War II that has America employed the “invade the world, invite the world” strategy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    Fair enough.

    No country is more hegemonic that the US
    , @Randal

    Remember, the United States for most of its history has been an isolationist/neutral nation
     
    LOL! Amazing how an "isolationist/neutral" nation managed to expand continuously from a small collection of remote and backward colonies in 1781 to a globe-bestriding empire with a history of interfering all around the world from South and Central America to the Mediterranean, Russia, China and the Pacific, and Africa, all before 1939.

    The US might have been "isolationist/neutral" in the sense that it saw it as being in its own interests to mostly stay out of the wars that were conveniently destroying its British and European rivals, but it was certainly aggressively expansionist and ruthless from the outset in the use of both military and economic power to impose its will on other peoples and countries, often on the other side of the world.

    It was hegemonic from the start, albeit starting small. A true heir of the British and European nations which begat it.

    What you describe is America's mendacious self-image, not reality.
  15. @Steve Naidamast
    Wars are always started by a small handful of people at the very top of the decision making process.

    World War II was started in the same fashion starting with FDR, Winston Churchill, Lord Halifax, and Josef Beck of Poland.

    A lot of what Americans believe about WWII is complete rubbish and is still maintained to make Americans look like the "good guys".

    Every US war since has been initiated by small groups of people who drag the rest of the world along into their own misery.

    The United States never had a legitimate vision of itself and its supposed "Founding Fathers" designed a system to maintain their own wealth.

    The terrible, national decisions made throughout the lifetime of the American nation have borne this out becoming only increasingly worse and more dangerous as we entered the modern ages.

    H. L. Mencken once said that "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of American people..." American leadership has always shown this to be an axiom of our national delusions of ourselves...

    “World War II was started in the same fashion starting with FDR, Winston Churchill, Lord Halifax, and Josef Beck of Poland.”

    World War II began with the imperialistic endeavors of Japan and the revenge at all cost machinations of Adolf Hitler.

    “A lot of what Americans believe about WWII is complete rubbish and is still maintained to make Americans look like the “good guys”.”

    The Americans are the GREAT guys. By chance are you German?

    “Every US war since has been initiated by small groups of people who drag the rest of the world along into their own misery.”

    How does the War of 1812 fit into your world view?

    “The United States never had a legitimate vision of itself and its supposed “Founding Fathers” designed a system to maintain their own wealth.”

    Never, huh? That’s a strong word to use. How do you know?

    Read More
    • Replies: @voicum
    if this is all the "arguments' you have maybe you should go back and finish third grade elementary class.
    , @Druid
    You have a very superficial knowledge about events, obviously!
  16. what is the new goal of U.S. foreign policy? What is the strategy to achieve it? Does anyone know?

    to destroy all resistance to global Zionist domination and the Zio/Anglo boot upon the face of humanity for all eternity. Duh

    (please note that the Zio/Anglo boot in question- will stamp on the face of the working class Brits as much as anyone else. The Anglo in the Zio/Anglo boot represents the aristocrat/Royal/pedophile faction of England, [and their like-minded fellow travelers in Hollywood and NYC, DC, Paris, Berlin, etc..) and not the average British man and women on the street, who are slated for hell on earth, just as much as everyone else, perhaps a little more so than others).

    ~ all of this was foreseeable as soon as Woodrow Wilson handed the keys to the US Treasury to the world’s greediest, most treacherous, tribal and ethnocentric men (war pigs) on the planet. In fact it wasn’t just foreseeable, but inevitable.

    Read More
  17. @Corvinus
    "No country has been more hegemonic that the US."

    The British up until the 1950's would have something say about it in light of their vast colonial empire crumbling. Remember, the United States for most of its history has been an isolationist/neutral nation. It was post-World War II that has America employed the "invade the world, invite the world" strategy.

    Fair enough.

    No country is more hegemonic that the US

    Read More
  18. “Fair enough. No country is more hegemonic that the US.”

    No country is more hegemonic than the U.S. post-World War II. Then you could make a legitimate case.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Was said:
    "Fair enough. No country is more hegemonic than the US.”

    I think the use of IS explains it well.

    Need I explain to you, Corvinus?

  19. @Realist
    "What Is America's Goal in the World?"

    Total domination.

    Insofar as American elites are concerned, your answer sums it up quite nicely.

    Read More
  20. United States stands for White supremacy, as simple as that.

    As long as the only superpower keeps being a majority White country, its influential actors and singers will influence the image of White leading roles in the world…

    Colored people should be aware of that, yet each year they insensantly consume the new films and tv series Hollywood gives them.

    Is sad that China acted agaisnt South Korea’s pop culture over a missile crisis, because their fellow Asian S.Korean actors started to gain a lot of fame because the so called Korea Wave, a chance for an increased Asian influence was lost.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Funny how a country that supposedly stands for white supremacy should have a majority non-white immigration policy isn't it sport? But I guess that is too much for your little mind to grasp.
  21. Post-WWII America was all about stamping out leftist radicals around the world, except now it’s infested with leftist radicals itself. Instead of stopping SJWism in other countries, it now exports it.

    Maybe the new goal for America in the 21st century is to fix itself?

    Read More
  22. Globalists say we should stand for a “rules-based world order.”

    Which of course is every bit as dishonest as you’d expect from globalists.

    Kosovo, Iraq and the recent symbolic (but still murderous) attack on Syria were all openly in defiance of the established rules, to which the US had voluntarily signed up.

    For the globalists, the rules only have any force when they serve the purposes of the globalists.

    Read More
  23. @Corvinus
    "No country has been more hegemonic that the US."

    The British up until the 1950's would have something say about it in light of their vast colonial empire crumbling. Remember, the United States for most of its history has been an isolationist/neutral nation. It was post-World War II that has America employed the "invade the world, invite the world" strategy.

    Remember, the United States for most of its history has been an isolationist/neutral nation

    LOL! Amazing how an “isolationist/neutral” nation managed to expand continuously from a small collection of remote and backward colonies in 1781 to a globe-bestriding empire with a history of interfering all around the world from South and Central America to the Mediterranean, Russia, China and the Pacific, and Africa, all before 1939.

    The US might have been “isolationist/neutral” in the sense that it saw it as being in its own interests to mostly stay out of the wars that were conveniently destroying its British and European rivals, but it was certainly aggressively expansionist and ruthless from the outset in the use of both military and economic power to impose its will on other peoples and countries, often on the other side of the world.

    It was hegemonic from the start, albeit starting small. A true heir of the British and European nations which begat it.

    What you describe is America’s mendacious self-image, not reality.

    Read More
    • Agree: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "LOL! Amazing how an “isolationist/neutral” nation..."

    The comment I responded to referred to hegemony. This term refers to the political, economic, or military predominance or control of one state over others states. America was NOT from the start "hegemonic". You are referring to American endeavors as known as manifest destiny, which spurred future imperialistic opportunities. In other words, there was a focus inwardly, i.e. link East Coast to West Coast. The United States was isolationist in its tariff and immigration policies. The United States was neutral in that it only engaged in wars when its political and economic interests were directly threatened. With its victory in the Spanish-American War (1898), the United States perhaps reluctantly become a world power.

    "with a history of interfering all around the world from South and Central America to the Mediterranean, Russia, China and the Pacific, and Africa, all before 1939."

    Not interfering, but securing natural resources and protecting its borders.

    "The US might have been “isolationist/neutral” in the sense that it saw it as being in its own interests to mostly stay out of the wars that were conveniently destroying its British and European rivals..."

    Yes.

    "but it was certainly aggressively expansionist and ruthless from the outset in the use of both military and economic power to impose its will on other peoples and countries, often on the other side of the world."

    Internal expansion. The American notion to grow outwardly stemmed in part to competition with European nations in the late 1800's. Now, the imposition of American will in a ruthless fashion? You mean, as in white folks? Huh, I never thought of it in that manner.
  24. @Corvinus
    "World War II was started in the same fashion starting with FDR, Winston Churchill, Lord Halifax, and Josef Beck of Poland."

    World War II began with the imperialistic endeavors of Japan and the revenge at all cost machinations of Adolf Hitler.

    "A lot of what Americans believe about WWII is complete rubbish and is still maintained to make Americans look like the “good guys”."

    The Americans are the GREAT guys. By chance are you German?

    "Every US war since has been initiated by small groups of people who drag the rest of the world along into their own misery."

    How does the War of 1812 fit into your world view?

    "The United States never had a legitimate vision of itself and its supposed “Founding Fathers” designed a system to maintain their own wealth."

    Never, huh? That's a strong word to use. How do you know?

    if this is all the “arguments’ you have maybe you should go back and finish third grade elementary class.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "if this is all the “arguments’ you have maybe you should go back and finish third grade elementary class."

    Steve Naidamast employed rhetoric. I responded in kind. Dialectic was not required.
  25. @dearieme
    "The far left of the Democratic Party that had taken us into Vietnam ... Center-right presidents — JFK ...

    But Vietnam was Kennedy's war.

    But Vietnam was Kennedy’s war.

    It was Kennedy’s before it was LBJ’s and Nixon’s. But did you not read the comment by “Eustace Tilley (not)” – above – which suggests that first it was Eisenhower’s?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Ho Chi Minh sent letters to Truman offering friendship but were rebuked because we wanted France in NATO and Ho was a communist. Truman could have avoided the whole mess by pressuring the French to leave in a timely and peaceful manner in the same way the British were freeing their colonies.

    The French probably wanted to hang on for the extra money needed to rebuild France.
  26. @englishmike
    But Vietnam was Kennedy’s war.

    It was Kennedy's before it was LBJ's and Nixon's. But did you not read the comment by "Eustace Tilley (not)" - above - which suggests that first it was Eisenhower's?

    Ho Chi Minh sent letters to Truman offering friendship but were rebuked because we wanted France in NATO and Ho was a communist. Truman could have avoided the whole mess by pressuring the French to leave in a timely and peaceful manner in the same way the British were freeing their colonies.

    The French probably wanted to hang on for the extra money needed to rebuild France.

    Read More
  27. @voicum
    if this is all the "arguments' you have maybe you should go back and finish third grade elementary class.

    “if this is all the “arguments’ you have maybe you should go back and finish third grade elementary class.”

    Steve Naidamast employed rhetoric. I responded in kind. Dialectic was not required.

    Read More
  28. @Randal

    Remember, the United States for most of its history has been an isolationist/neutral nation
     
    LOL! Amazing how an "isolationist/neutral" nation managed to expand continuously from a small collection of remote and backward colonies in 1781 to a globe-bestriding empire with a history of interfering all around the world from South and Central America to the Mediterranean, Russia, China and the Pacific, and Africa, all before 1939.

    The US might have been "isolationist/neutral" in the sense that it saw it as being in its own interests to mostly stay out of the wars that were conveniently destroying its British and European rivals, but it was certainly aggressively expansionist and ruthless from the outset in the use of both military and economic power to impose its will on other peoples and countries, often on the other side of the world.

    It was hegemonic from the start, albeit starting small. A true heir of the British and European nations which begat it.

    What you describe is America's mendacious self-image, not reality.

    “LOL! Amazing how an “isolationist/neutral” nation…”

    The comment I responded to referred to hegemony. This term refers to the political, economic, or military predominance or control of one state over others states. America was NOT from the start “hegemonic”. You are referring to American endeavors as known as manifest destiny, which spurred future imperialistic opportunities. In other words, there was a focus inwardly, i.e. link East Coast to West Coast. The United States was isolationist in its tariff and immigration policies. The United States was neutral in that it only engaged in wars when its political and economic interests were directly threatened. With its victory in the Spanish-American War (1898), the United States perhaps reluctantly become a world power.

    “with a history of interfering all around the world from South and Central America to the Mediterranean, Russia, China and the Pacific, and Africa, all before 1939.”

    Not interfering, but securing natural resources and protecting its borders.

    “The US might have been “isolationist/neutral” in the sense that it saw it as being in its own interests to mostly stay out of the wars that were conveniently destroying its British and European rivals…”

    Yes.

    “but it was certainly aggressively expansionist and ruthless from the outset in the use of both military and economic power to impose its will on other peoples and countries, often on the other side of the world.”

    Internal expansion. The American notion to grow outwardly stemmed in part to competition with European nations in the late 1800′s. Now, the imposition of American will in a ruthless fashion? You mean, as in white folks? Huh, I never thought of it in that manner.

    Read More
  29. @Corvinus
    "Fair enough. No country is more hegemonic that the US."

    No country is more hegemonic than the U.S. post-World War II. Then you could make a legitimate case.

    Was said:
    “Fair enough. No country is more hegemonic than the US.”

    I think the use of IS explains it well.

    Need I explain to you, Corvinus?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I think the use of IS explains it well."

    And I added the appropriate time period. Need I explain it to you, Wally? Then again, why waste my time.
  30. America’s role in the world is to force people of every nation to buy American services and products and sell natural resources cheaply to America, by installing friendly proxy governments by killing people where necessary, so really it is a kind of imperialism. In some respects it may be seen as beneficial, but there will always be winners and losers.

    Read More
  31. @Wally
    Was said:
    "Fair enough. No country is more hegemonic than the US.”

    I think the use of IS explains it well.

    Need I explain to you, Corvinus?

    “I think the use of IS explains it well.”

    And I added the appropriate time period. Need I explain it to you, Wally? Then again, why waste my time.

    Read More
  32. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jose Allan
    United States stands for White supremacy, as simple as that.

    As long as the only superpower keeps being a majority White country, its influential actors and singers will influence the image of White leading roles in the world...

    Colored people should be aware of that, yet each year they insensantly consume the new films and tv series Hollywood gives them.

    Is sad that China acted agaisnt South Korea's pop culture over a missile crisis, because their fellow Asian S.Korean actors started to gain a lot of fame because the so called Korea Wave, a chance for an increased Asian influence was lost.

    Funny how a country that supposedly stands for white supremacy should have a majority non-white immigration policy isn’t it sport? But I guess that is too much for your little mind to grasp.

    Read More
  33. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    What the USA foreign policy should be is to be the strongest power in the Americas while maintaining a balance of power in the Eurasian landmass + Africa (the old world). The empires of bases is unwise.

    Read More
  34. : Not true at all, what my mind grasp is Hollywood is well know for its whitewashing roles in films, and often Asian Americans are the victim of that practice. Black Americans use the race card so Hollywood gives them more a chance. Actually not only Asians, but also Hispanic Americans are quite underrepresented.
    All these years of non-white immigration policy yet few Asian / Hispanic leading roles in tv series, films or music? how weird.
    Thats why I support the Korea Wave, because South Koreans seem to be the most assertive East Asians for tv series roles. If you google the top tv series in google trends and twitter last year, most of them were from Hollywood, except “Descendants Of The Sun”! of S.Korean origin. Thanks to the popular reception it had not only in its own country, but also in China and other mostly Asian countries, because we know Americans don’t tend to watch foreign tv.

    Read More
  35. “George H.W. Bush took us to war to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Soaring to 90 percent approval, he declared America’s new role was to construct a New World Order.”

    No accounting for the stupidity of the American people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "No accounting for the stupidity of the American people."

    You do realize that you made an anti-white statement here, right? The American people include high IQ, high preference white people. When you make this generalization, you impugn on the wholesomeness of your own race. Why would you seek to incur the wrath of the Anglo-Saxon?
  36. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    "The far left of the Democratic Party that had taken us into Vietnam..."

    "During his term, Eisenhower will greatly increase U.S. military aid to the French in Vietnam to prevent a Communist victory. U.S. military advisors will continue to accompany American supplies sent to Vietnam. To justify America's commitment, Eisenhower will cite a 'Domino Theory' in which a Communist victory in Vietnam would result in surrounding countries falling one after another like a 'falling row of dominoes'. The Domino Theory will be used by a succession of Presidents and their advisors to justify ever-deepening U.S. involvement in Vietnam."

    www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html

    So, in complete honesty, who "took" us to Vietnam?

    Pat Buchanan is not an historian. He is a propagandist with an agenda to persuade.

    Agreed. What a load of nonsense he wrote about Saudi Arabia and Sept 11. Ha! As if…

    Read More
  37. @WorkingClass
    We might try peace and prosperity. Trade and diplomacy. I love you Pat. But you are an imperialist.

    But you are an imperialist.

    Huh? Pat has consistently opposed our interventionalist, imperial foreign policies in his articles including this one. He also wrote a book titled A Republic, not an Empire and was effectively banished as a guest on FOX News when he opposed Iraq War II and defended Iran from unwarranted attacks by the neocons.

    I don’t what he has said or done to prompt you to make that claim.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @KenH

    Pat has consistently opposed our interventionalist,
     
    Meant to type "interventionist".

    Buchanan also called the U.S. Senate "Israeli occupied territory" in the run up to the first Iraq war and suggested that Jewish political machinations in that chamber were the primary reason we were going to war.
  38. It should be obvious that Israel’s goals in the world are America’s goals. If Israel doesn’t like some nation or its government then neither do we. I’m sure that’s just a coinkydink.

    The U.S. Congress, the president (including the current occupant) and our military are nothing more than janissaries for the domestic Jewish lobby and the state of Israel.

    Read More
  39. @Steve Naidamast
    Wars are always started by a small handful of people at the very top of the decision making process.

    World War II was started in the same fashion starting with FDR, Winston Churchill, Lord Halifax, and Josef Beck of Poland.

    A lot of what Americans believe about WWII is complete rubbish and is still maintained to make Americans look like the "good guys".

    Every US war since has been initiated by small groups of people who drag the rest of the world along into their own misery.

    The United States never had a legitimate vision of itself and its supposed "Founding Fathers" designed a system to maintain their own wealth.

    The terrible, national decisions made throughout the lifetime of the American nation have borne this out becoming only increasingly worse and more dangerous as we entered the modern ages.

    H. L. Mencken once said that "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of American people..." American leadership has always shown this to be an axiom of our national delusions of ourselves...

    Wars are always started by a small handful of people at the very top of the decision making process.

    My reading of history leads me to the same conclusion. It’s a basic fact that everyone should understand.

    The United States never had a legitimate vision of itself and its supposed “Founding Fathers” designed a system to maintain their own wealth.

    Exactly. From the perspective of freedom for the masses, it was a fraud from the start. A huge swindle, in fact. The suckers who fought and paid for the thing merely traded one yoke for another, and we saps are still paying.

    Read More
  40. @KenH

    But you are an imperialist.
     
    Huh? Pat has consistently opposed our interventionalist, imperial foreign policies in his articles including this one. He also wrote a book titled A Republic, not an Empire and was effectively banished as a guest on FOX News when he opposed Iraq War II and defended Iran from unwarranted attacks by the neocons.

    I don't what he has said or done to prompt you to make that claim.

    Pat has consistently opposed our interventionalist,

    Meant to type “interventionist”.

    Buchanan also called the U.S. Senate “Israeli occupied territory” in the run up to the first Iraq war and suggested that Jewish political machinations in that chamber were the primary reason we were going to war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    100 - 0, that's 'zero' against, to tell the UN to stop their anti Zionist bias. ZOG-ed is right and that's what our goal in the world is, to fight and die for Zion.
  41. @Realist
    "George H.W. Bush took us to war to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Soaring to 90 percent approval, he declared America’s new role was to construct a New World Order."

    No accounting for the stupidity of the American people.

    “No accounting for the stupidity of the American people.”

    You do realize that you made an anti-white statement here, right? The American people include high IQ, high preference white people. When you make this generalization, you impugn on the wholesomeness of your own race. Why would you seek to incur the wrath of the Anglo-Saxon?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    You have raised this argument before.
    I did not state that ALL American people are stupid.
    It is true that the group with the most intelligent people is white. That said there are plenty of stupid white people. Consider when current IQ tests were developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less. The norming sample is almost always Americans. That means that IQ scores are relative to the mean American IQ score. Due to the large influx of low IQ immigrants, over the last 50 years, the mean IQ score of Americans is now about 97 when compared to the older value of 100.
    The definition of stupid is arbitrary, but I would set it at 105 or lower. This means that the average American is stupid. How could this country be so screwed up if it were otherwise?
    , @neutral
    You should then realize that with those arguments your wish for America to rule the world is therefore supporting white supremacism.
  42. @Priss Factor
    There are military wars. US won most of them. Even when US lost, the other side suffered far more damage than the US. It's been said US lost the Vietnam War, but compare what happened to US with what happened to Vietnam. It's like George Kennedy's loss to Paul Newman in COOL HAND LUKE.

    Some might say US lost in Iraq too, but US was untouched by the war. Iraq is a total mess.

    But there is a war more crucial than military wars. The Invisible War. The power within the US has been determined by the Invisible War. And it was this War, more than the Cold War, that shaped the future of the world. USSR was once a world power, but it failed to win the hearts and minds or the loins and groins of the masses of the world. So, once the USSR collapsed, the question was which group in America would get to determine America's lone-superpower agenda for the entire world?

    This Invisible War mattered a great deal because US is ethnically diverse.
    All nations have Invisible Wars among various groups contending for dominance, but in a homogeneous nation, the dominant race-and-culture of that nation is in charge regardless of which side wins. Suppose there are various factions vying for power in China. Whichever wins, China is controlled by Chinese.

    And it used to be like that in the US. For awhile, the only major groups vying for power were all white Protestants, or Wasps. But then, waves of immigration added new groups to the contest of power.
    And something fundamentally changed since the 60s.
    The Invisible War came down to Wasps and Jews. This was fought in the realm of media, academia, arts, culture, finance, ideas, and various industries. But it wasn't a simple 'war' between two ethnic groups in the way that Italian gangs might fight Irish gangs.
    Invisible War happens in the realm of ideas, so the other side could be turned to serve your side. Their minds could be colonized by the ideas of your side.
    So, over time, more and more Wasps came to be won over to the Jewish side. Most Liberal Wasps came under domination of Jewish politics. And in time, most Wasp conservative figures came to be mentally-colonized by Neocon thought. Jews won not only by conflict but by conversion.

    So, Jews won the Invisible War in America, and their agenda has been turning the world upside down with Wars for Israel, Open Borders, anti-nativitism, pro-invasivism, Homomania, crazy feminism, and Afromania.

    It's a strange agenda. At its core, it is tribal and ethno-supremacist, but it is promoted as 'western values', 'human rights', or 'universal principles', all vague notions manipulated and distorted in meaning to serve an agenda that aligns with Jewish supremacist machinations.
    So, this 'universal values' requires the US to make life hell for Muslims over there but hug them like long-lost brothers over here. It's seems crazy and illogical, but once you understand the Power it really serves, what seems like contradictions on the surface make perfect sense at the core.

    Worth repeating:

    And something fundamentally changed since the 60s.
    The Invisible War came down to Wasps and Jews. This was fought in the realm of media, academia, arts, culture, finance, ideas, and various industries. But it wasn’t a simple ‘war’ between two ethnic groups in the way that Italian gangs might fight Irish gangs.
    Invisible War happens in the realm of ideas, so the other side could be turned to serve your side. Their minds could be colonized by the ideas of your side.
    So, over time, more and more Wasps came to be won over to the Jewish side. Most Liberal Wasps came under domination of Jewish politics. And in time, most Wasp conservative figures came to be mentally-colonized by Neocon thought. Jews won not only by conflict but by conversion.

    So, Jews won the Invisible War in America, and their agenda has been turning the world upside down with Wars for Israel, Open Borders, anti-nativitism, pro-invasivism, Homomania, crazy feminism, and Afromania.

    It’s a strange agenda. At its core, it is tribal and ethno-supremacist, but it is promoted as ‘western values’, ‘human rights’, or ‘universal principles’, all vague notions manipulated and distorted in meaning to serve an agenda that aligns with Jewish supremacist machinations.
    So, this ‘universal values’ requires the US to make life hell for Muslims over there but hug them like long-lost brothers over here. It’s seems crazy and illogical, but once you understand the Power it really serves, what seems like contradictions on the surface make perfect sense at the core.

    Read More
  43. @KenH

    Pat has consistently opposed our interventionalist,
     
    Meant to type "interventionist".

    Buchanan also called the U.S. Senate "Israeli occupied territory" in the run up to the first Iraq war and suggested that Jewish political machinations in that chamber were the primary reason we were going to war.

    100 – 0, that’s ‘zero’ against, to tell the UN to stop their anti Zionist bias. ZOG-ed is right and that’s what our goal in the world is, to fight and die for Zion.

    Read More
  44. TCuck’s first overseas venture is to visit his vile izzy sponsors, and then on to the even more vile saud goat herders for a love fest……capped off by a meeting with the head fag of the Pedophile Cult of the Seven Hills. Hmmmm………….

    Read More
  45. @Corvinus
    "No accounting for the stupidity of the American people."

    You do realize that you made an anti-white statement here, right? The American people include high IQ, high preference white people. When you make this generalization, you impugn on the wholesomeness of your own race. Why would you seek to incur the wrath of the Anglo-Saxon?

    You have raised this argument before.
    I did not state that ALL American people are stupid.
    It is true that the group with the most intelligent people is white. That said there are plenty of stupid white people. Consider when current IQ tests were developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less. The norming sample is almost always Americans. That means that IQ scores are relative to the mean American IQ score. Due to the large influx of low IQ immigrants, over the last 50 years, the mean IQ score of Americans is now about 97 when compared to the older value of 100.
    The definition of stupid is arbitrary, but I would set it at 105 or lower. This means that the average American is stupid. How could this country be so screwed up if it were otherwise?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I did not state that ALL American people are stupid."

    Perhaps in the future you should clarify.

    "It is true that the group with the most intelligent people is white. That said there are plenty of stupid white people."

    How elitist of you to state. White people are other than stupid, IQ test be damned. Why do some people here have this fixation?

    "Due to the large influx of low IQ immigrants, over the last 50 years, the mean IQ score of Americans is now about 97 when compared to the older value of 100."

    You really need to be educated on the subject here.

    http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/17/are-hispanics-too-stupid-to-become-ameri

    "The definition of stupid is arbitrary, but I would set it at 105 or lower. This means that the average American is stupid. How could this country be so screwed up if it were otherwise?"

    No. Mental deficiency used to be divided into the following sub-classifications, but these labels began to be abused by the public and are now largely obsolete: Borderline Deficiency (IQ 70-80), Moron (IQ 50-69), Imbecile (IQ 20-49) and Idiot (below 20).

    Those who have an IQ between 90-105 are OTHER than stupid, you elitist scoundrel.
  46. What is America’s goal in the world? Scrap those regime change nonsense and work with China and Russia for a better world.

    Read More
  47. We have no goal as a nation. Meaning anything that is actually debated and voted on.

    We have instead an executive that can wage war without congress. We have a congress that takes donations from Wahhabi head-choppers and anyone else with dough to buy the influence they want.

    The result is incoherent and even self-contradictory: funding ISIS and fighting ISIS at the same time.

    We all know Saudi Arabia is our ally, because that’s what we’re told. Bin Laden, most of the 9/11 hijackers – Saudis. Wahhabism: Saudi.

    It’s like the US marries her stalker.

    Read More
  48. Which America has which goal?

    The America of the 0.1% Globali$t Open Border$ $ellout E$tabli$hment whose Invade The World, Invite The World bent has no American goal and is purely opportunist, so long as its unchecked pursuit of that bent continues to enrich the 0.1% Globali$t Open Border$ $ellout E$tabli$hment, and continues to strengthen its grip on its parasite/whores of Enemedia-Pravda and the Government/Deep State as a means of arrogating to the $ellout E$tabli$hment increasingly totalitarian global power?

    The America of the deracinated Cult-Marxist Left-lib-progs who are nothing but clueless useful idiots – enthusiastic stooges – for the Globali$t Open Border$ E$tabli$hment’s Invade The World, Invite The World $ellout pursuit?

    Or, the America of genuine, historically aware, rooted, sensible Americans whose heritage and goal is to take care of their own backyard, to keep the United States out of other people’s countries, and to keep other countries’ peoples out of the United States in order to keep America American?

    Read More
  49. @Realist
    You have raised this argument before.
    I did not state that ALL American people are stupid.
    It is true that the group with the most intelligent people is white. That said there are plenty of stupid white people. Consider when current IQ tests were developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less. The norming sample is almost always Americans. That means that IQ scores are relative to the mean American IQ score. Due to the large influx of low IQ immigrants, over the last 50 years, the mean IQ score of Americans is now about 97 when compared to the older value of 100.
    The definition of stupid is arbitrary, but I would set it at 105 or lower. This means that the average American is stupid. How could this country be so screwed up if it were otherwise?

    “I did not state that ALL American people are stupid.”

    Perhaps in the future you should clarify.

    “It is true that the group with the most intelligent people is white. That said there are plenty of stupid white people.”

    How elitist of you to state. White people are other than stupid, IQ test be damned. Why do some people here have this fixation?

    “Due to the large influx of low IQ immigrants, over the last 50 years, the mean IQ score of Americans is now about 97 when compared to the older value of 100.”

    You really need to be educated on the subject here.

    http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/17/are-hispanics-too-stupid-to-become-ameri

    “The definition of stupid is arbitrary, but I would set it at 105 or lower. This means that the average American is stupid. How could this country be so screwed up if it were otherwise?”

    No. Mental deficiency used to be divided into the following sub-classifications, but these labels began to be abused by the public and are now largely obsolete: Borderline Deficiency (IQ 70-80), Moron (IQ 50-69), Imbecile (IQ 20-49) and Idiot (below 20).

    Those who have an IQ between 90-105 are OTHER than stupid, you elitist scoundrel.

    Read More
  50. They want to rule the world, everything else is just saying that in a longer way.

    Read More
  51. @Corvinus
    "No accounting for the stupidity of the American people."

    You do realize that you made an anti-white statement here, right? The American people include high IQ, high preference white people. When you make this generalization, you impugn on the wholesomeness of your own race. Why would you seek to incur the wrath of the Anglo-Saxon?

    You should then realize that with those arguments your wish for America to rule the world is therefore supporting white supremacism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "You should then realize that with those arguments your wish for America to rule the world is therefore supporting white supremacism."

    In what ways? Be specific.
  52. @Priss Factor
    There are military wars. US won most of them. Even when US lost, the other side suffered far more damage than the US. It's been said US lost the Vietnam War, but compare what happened to US with what happened to Vietnam. It's like George Kennedy's loss to Paul Newman in COOL HAND LUKE.

    Some might say US lost in Iraq too, but US was untouched by the war. Iraq is a total mess.

    But there is a war more crucial than military wars. The Invisible War. The power within the US has been determined by the Invisible War. And it was this War, more than the Cold War, that shaped the future of the world. USSR was once a world power, but it failed to win the hearts and minds or the loins and groins of the masses of the world. So, once the USSR collapsed, the question was which group in America would get to determine America's lone-superpower agenda for the entire world?

    This Invisible War mattered a great deal because US is ethnically diverse.
    All nations have Invisible Wars among various groups contending for dominance, but in a homogeneous nation, the dominant race-and-culture of that nation is in charge regardless of which side wins. Suppose there are various factions vying for power in China. Whichever wins, China is controlled by Chinese.

    And it used to be like that in the US. For awhile, the only major groups vying for power were all white Protestants, or Wasps. But then, waves of immigration added new groups to the contest of power.
    And something fundamentally changed since the 60s.
    The Invisible War came down to Wasps and Jews. This was fought in the realm of media, academia, arts, culture, finance, ideas, and various industries. But it wasn't a simple 'war' between two ethnic groups in the way that Italian gangs might fight Irish gangs.
    Invisible War happens in the realm of ideas, so the other side could be turned to serve your side. Their minds could be colonized by the ideas of your side.
    So, over time, more and more Wasps came to be won over to the Jewish side. Most Liberal Wasps came under domination of Jewish politics. And in time, most Wasp conservative figures came to be mentally-colonized by Neocon thought. Jews won not only by conflict but by conversion.

    So, Jews won the Invisible War in America, and their agenda has been turning the world upside down with Wars for Israel, Open Borders, anti-nativitism, pro-invasivism, Homomania, crazy feminism, and Afromania.

    It's a strange agenda. At its core, it is tribal and ethno-supremacist, but it is promoted as 'western values', 'human rights', or 'universal principles', all vague notions manipulated and distorted in meaning to serve an agenda that aligns with Jewish supremacist machinations.
    So, this 'universal values' requires the US to make life hell for Muslims over there but hug them like long-lost brothers over here. It's seems crazy and illogical, but once you understand the Power it really serves, what seems like contradictions on the surface make perfect sense at the core.

    What the US lost was respect and the Gold standard, now US$ is backed up by faith and that is eroding fast. When she blows, you are going to see the biggest fire works in history.

    Read More
  53. If we do not review and discard some of these war guarantees, we shall never know peace. Donald Trump once seemed to understand this. Does he still?

    It’s naive to think that Donald Trump every understood this. He simply said this because he thought some, or perhaps most, of his potential supporters wanted to hear it. In the few months that Trump has been president, I have become convinced that Trump knows nothing and cares about nothing other than his own personal aggrandizement and reducing taxes for both himself and his friends. With respect to taxes, the primary reason Trump wanted to amend the ACA is that it called for a 2% tax on income above $200,000 to fund Medicare. Two percent may not seem like much to someone earning $2 mil a year, but the concern is that if not reversed, it could grow higher.

    Read More
  54. @neutral
    You should then realize that with those arguments your wish for America to rule the world is therefore supporting white supremacism.

    “You should then realize that with those arguments your wish for America to rule the world is therefore supporting white supremacism.”

    In what ways? Be specific.

    Read More
  55. @Corvinus
    "World War II was started in the same fashion starting with FDR, Winston Churchill, Lord Halifax, and Josef Beck of Poland."

    World War II began with the imperialistic endeavors of Japan and the revenge at all cost machinations of Adolf Hitler.

    "A lot of what Americans believe about WWII is complete rubbish and is still maintained to make Americans look like the “good guys”."

    The Americans are the GREAT guys. By chance are you German?

    "Every US war since has been initiated by small groups of people who drag the rest of the world along into their own misery."

    How does the War of 1812 fit into your world view?

    "The United States never had a legitimate vision of itself and its supposed “Founding Fathers” designed a system to maintain their own wealth."

    Never, huh? That's a strong word to use. How do you know?

    You have a very superficial knowledge about events, obviously!

    Read More
  56. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Druid
    You have a very superficial knowledge about events, obviously!

    Don’t feed the troll.

    Read More
  57. @WorkingClass
    We might try peace and prosperity. Trade and diplomacy. I love you Pat. But you are an imperialist.

    haahah :P right on.

    Read More
  58. […] in his most recent political column, paleo-conservative Pat Buchanan, who has often come close enough to the truth to be singed by it, […]

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.