The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Peter Brimelow Archive
“Wheel and Fight”—Pat Buchanan’s Nixon Book Provides Road Map for Trump
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

If History is “a set of lies agreed upon,” as Napoleon is supposed to have said, then American politics has increasingly become a series of induced hysterias by elite agreement. Thus the Ruling Class’s Trayvon Martin, Ferguson and Baltimore frenzies came and went, shamelessly unaffected by repeated Narrative Collapses—inexplicable, unless you were aware of Left’s amoral imperative to incite its black clients against the white American majority. And the current “Impeach Trump!” frenzy really has nothing to do with Russia or Comey—it’s simply the latest expression of the Left’s long-brewing refusal to accept defeat in the 2016 election, which it counted on to complete its coup against the Historic American Nation [Trump Impeachment Talk Started Before He Was Even Nominated, by Peter Hassan, Daily Caller, May 17, 2017].

It’s as simple as this: If the Evil Party gets control of the House of Representatives, Trump was always going to be impeached, regardless of what he did. (Conviction, which requires 67 Senate votes, might be more difficult—although Democrats probably assume any Republican President could be guilted into capitulation, like Richard Nixon, unlike Bill Clinton). The good news: this demystifies impeachment, which has long argued is not a juridical proceeding but an assertion of political control like a no-confidence motion in a Parliamentary system—and should be more broadly applied, by a patriot Congress, not just to Presidents but to bureaucrats and kritarchs.

And the great news: we now have a road map to how a patriot President can survive a Ruling Class induced hysteria—Patrick J. Buchanan’s just-published Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Broke A President And Divided America Forever.

Buchanan’s book is important and powerful—but somber: he’s not joking at all with the last four words of his title, although he doesn’t dwell on it. It’s a theme that has increasingly appeared in his recent columns, here and here and here.

In effect, Buchanan endorses’s contention that an irrepressible conflict is now developing between America and anti-America, which we argue is ultimately traceable to ethnic division and was fatally exacerbated by the 1965 Immigration Act, which became effective in 1968, the year of Nixon’s election.

In this book, Buchanan does not directly mention immigration, which took time to emerge as an issue. But he does note with regret that Nixon failed to kill in the cradle two racial-socialist programs, Affirmative Action and federal social engineering of housing patterns, both of which were to become devastating to Middle America. Non-white immigrants qualify for both—absurdly unless you realize that the real purpose of these programs is to empower Leftist bureaucrats.

The compelling immediate relevance of Nixon’s White House Wars, however, is its insider analysis in Chapters 3 and 4 of the brilliantly-successful counter-attack against its Leftist foes that the Nixon Administration launched late in 1969, its first year. This is what Trump should read (or maybe have Steve Bannon tell him about).

Because the Nixon Administration and the Vietnam War both ended in disaster, it’s easy to forget that both enjoyed considerable periods of triumph, which at one point even amounted to what appeared to be conclusive victory. Nixon was re-elected in a landslide in 1972. When he was inaugurated in January 1973, every provincial capital was in Saigon’s hands, the last US ground troops were leaving South Vietnam and American POWs were coming home. Optimists (I must say I was not among them) thought a South Korea-type solution had been achieved. It took a lot of lying, sabotage and treason by MSM and Congressional Democrats to undo these successes and it took time, until 1975. But they did it, and have since written the era’s history.

Buchanan vividly recreates the MSM-hyped atmosphere of crisis in Washington in the fall of 1969, now completely forgotten but at the time an incipient elite coup even more serious than anything yet seen under Trump:

Directly ahead was the largest antiwar protest in US history, October 15, when hundreds of thousands were expected on the Washington Monument grounds, within sight of the White House. Major media had become propagandists for the antiwar movement and were beating the drums for getting out of Vietnam now. It seemed as though the fate of Lyndon Johnson, his presidency broken by the Tet Offensive in 1968 and his humiliation by Gene McCarthy in New Hampshire, could be ours as well. David Broder of the Washington Post saw President Nixon’s situation as did I. “It is becoming more obvious with every passing day that the men and the movement that broke Lyndon Johnson’s authority in 1968 are out to break Richard Nixon in 1969,” wrote Broder on October 7. “The likelihood is great that they will succeed again.”

This was a particularly dangerous situation for Nixon because his Republican Party controlled neither Senate nor House. In theory, the Democrats could have wrested policy from him at any point, although in those days the prestige of the Presidency and respect for its prerogatives, sacralized by years of Democratic dominance, was still a serious inhibition.

Contrary to his current Demon King image, Nixon had responded after his election very much as Trump (notwithstanding his more abrasive rhetoric) has done: appeasement. He made no move to defund Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society. He continued Johnson’s suspension of the bombing of North Vietnam, a disgustingly irresponsible ploy originally designed to shore up Democratic support in the 1968 presidential election campaign at the expense of the Americans troops fighting and dying in great numbers in the South. Similarly, Trump has notoriously signaled a willingness to accept many Establishment priorities in domestic legislation and foreign policy.

Needless to say, appeasement did not work for either man. Partly this was because both provoked a really peculiar blind personal hatred from the political class— “for reasons I could not comprehend,” says Buchanan in the case of Nixon, “given his centrist politics and even liberal policies…” Much the same can be said of Trump, who has shunned long-standing social issues like opposition to the homosexual agenda that are usually supposed to cause the elite hostility to conservatives. A further problem for Nixon was the utter, bone-headed intransigence of Hanoi. For Trump, it is the virtual certainty that continued Muslim immigration will result in more Muslim Massacres, here or in Europe, probably in both.

Buchanan urged Nixon to “wheel and fight,” defending himself and his refusal to concede defeat in Vietnam to a still-patriotic America. And Nixon did, in a November 3 nation-wide televised address which—remarkably—he wrote himself, but which included a soon-to-be famous Buchanan phrase, italicized:

And so tonight—to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans—I ask for your support…,

The speech was a huge success, with 70 percent approval. And this was in the teeth of unanimous derision from the network commentators, then an unchallengeable opinion oligopoly.

This led directly to the dropping of the next shoe, also orchestrated by Buchanan: Vice President Spiro Agnew’s November 13 Des Moines attack on the Main Stream Media, which, blithely taking for granted that America would rally to their defense, the networks aired live. The results were catastrophic—for them.

Although it’s now hard to imagine, the Main Stream Media had been as generally respected as the office of the Presidency itself. Agnew and Buchanan burst that bubble for good. When CNN’s Chris Cillizza says of allegations that the GOP victor in Thursday’s Montana special election scuffled with a Leftist journalist,

There’s no question that some [Greg] Gianforte voters actually backed him because of the confrontation…Sadly, the fact that Gianforte’s assault happened on a reporter also makes it more likely to disappear as a major issue since reporters are about as popular as foot fungus

he’s conceding a reality that Agnew and Buchanan were the first to establish [Greg Gianforte won. Now what do Republicans do? May 26, 2017].

(Again shattering current conventional wisdom, Buchanan, who does not impress easily, has great respect for Agnew’s courage and abilities. He says:

Had he left the practices of Annapolis back in Annapolis, Spiro Agnew would have been President of the United States.

He is a forgotten man today, but there has never been a vice president like him, who came to national politics an unknown, ascended to the heights in the esteem and affection of half his countrymen, then fell so low and so hard

It remains only say that “the practices of Annapolis” fade into insignificance compared with the practices of Lyndon. B. Johnson, as revealed by Robert A. Caro’s devastating multi-volume biography, as indeed does the Watergate scandal itself.)

Buchanan summarizes the results of wheeling and fighting:

That fall, Nixon hit 68 percent approval in Gallup, a level he would reach again only once, when our POWs came home. At year’s end, in a Gallup survey, Nixon was the Most Admired Man in America. Billy Graham was second. Vice President Spiro Agnew, an object of mockery only months before, was now the third Most Admired Man in America. Teddy White notwithstanding, November 1969 was “the Making of the President.”

What this means in the current situation is clear: Trump must wheel and fight. And he must fight on the issue that elected him, which poses an existential threat to the American nation (and, incidentally, the GOP) that is even more serious than global Communism: mass out-of-control non-traditional immigration, which out-of-control Leftist judicial imperialists have now made unmistakably clear they intend to read into the constitution. Trump must make clear (especially to cowardly Republican Congressman) that the survival of the Historic American Nation is inextricable from his own.

Not for the first time, I agree with Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz:

As soon as the president returns home from Europe, he should call in leaders of Congress and demand that they vote on as many of these 20 immigration and homeland security ideas as possible. Specifically, they must:

  • Block funding for all refugees and visas from the Middle East for the remainder of the fiscal year.
  • Further enforce provisions of the INA that strip the courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate rejections of visas.
  • Pass a supplemental funding bill for the border wall and the construction of a visa exit-entry tracking system, a goal Democrats officially support and that has been passed by Congress numerous times since 1996.

In order to accomplish this or anything else, Congressional Republicans need to modify the filibuster rules. Otherwise, they face electoral oblivion. It’s time they actually confront the issues of our time and harness the news cycle to pass common-sense national security bills. The president must use the bully pulpit and his status as leader of the party to craft specific proposals for the do-nothing Congress. Then, place the onus on them to act. He should give a televised address from the Oval Office outlining his response to the growing threat of homegrown terrorism and demanding action from Congress to deal with the courts.

Or we could just use up this once-in-generation electoral mandate on naming post offices and continuing every major Obama policy.

Even after Manchester terror, Congress silent on US problems, May 23 2017. Link in original.

Will Trump do this? Of course, I don’t know. It’s crossed my mind that Trump actually is what used to be called manic depressive, and that after the superhuman effort of the campaign, he is currently in some kind of slump. (Being manic depressive is in itself no disqualification for high office: it didn’t stop Lord Chatham from being Britain’s greatest Prime Minister. And personal observation has convinced me that most professional politicians are psychologically odd).

But, after all, Trump reacted to every other crisis in his short but crisis-filled political career by fighting his way out.

if I had to bet, I’d say that, in some form, he will do it again

Peter Brimelow [Email him] is the editor of His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster , is now available in Kindle format.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Richard Nixon, Watergate 
Hide 70 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. El Dato says:

    He continued Johnson’s suspension of the bombing of North Vietnam, a disgustingly irresponsible ploy originally designed to shore up Democratic support in the 1968 presidential election campaign at the expense of the Americans troops fighting and dying in great numbers in the South.

    Well, start with a Gulf of Tonkin made-up “incident” and you never know how might be dying and for what.

    My disgust is tempered by the political background history of the whole show where Good Guys were hard to find anywhere.

  2. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Robert A. Caro’s devastating multi-volume biography,eh?

    Given all the dirt on Johnson now out there, hagiography might be a better description.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
  3. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Nation of Immigrants = Nation of Unassimilable Foreigners

    • Replies: @LauraMR
  4. joe webb says:

    “In effect, Buchanan endorses’s contention that an irrepressible conflict is now developing between America and anti-America, which we argue is ultimately traceable to ethnic division and was fatally exacerbated by the 1965 Immigration Act, which became effective in 1968, the year of Nixon’s election.”

    Right; this was presaged by the 1924 Immigration Act, that led to the southern European and other working-class whites combined with the negroes and jews to form the Democratic Party coalition that led to FDR and the relative Left takeover of the Anglo-Saxon nation.

    Something like ten plus million voters were assembled in the following decade from immigration for the jewish takeover of the Dem Party, and under FDR, the electoral coup and what we now call Deep State staffing of dozens of bureaucratic outfits…alphabet soup as they were called…with commies, libs, and jews who were themselves commies and libs of course. That FDR coalition reigned until Whites got their backs up with Ike, and on to Nixon, etc. Then we know the rest as recent history.

    So we have had two Revolutions against White people in our lifetime. The useless, the poor, the dumb, the wretcheds of the earth, have been marshaled to replace Whites in the US.

    If not stopped now, it is all over, and Whites will beg for mercy. And Whites will , before that happens, start to shoot darkies, white race traitors, yellows, and finally jews too. Hopefully, the White race traitors and jews get it first.

    Joe Webb

    • Agree: Z-man
    • Replies: @Z-man
  5. President Trump could order thousands of American soldiers deployed to existing military bases near our borders to actually defend the USA. This was the primary role of the US Army before World War II. The US Border Patrol didn’t even exist until 1924.

    This would cost little and could be paid for by existing Army operational and training funding, and could be done in a matter of weeks. Congress would have no say and no permission is required. Anyone who doubts this has been confused by corporate propaganda and can learn from reading this.


    Dat Trump zichzelf als brexiteer ziet en het anti-Europese populisme aanmoedigt, vormt een breuk met alles waar het naoorlogse Amerika voor staat.

    The above is written by a Dutch journalist living in Berlin, Van Baar, a pro EU writer.
    That Trump sees himself as brexiteer and encourages anti European populism, is a rupture with all that post WWII USA has as values.

    Van Baar is quite right, Trump wants good relations with Russia, this does not fit in with EU expansion plans, the Ukraine association, an association with a military paragraph.

    European queen Merkel sees her chance to improve her position, as she says ‘the USA no longer supports us, thus we need a stronger Europe’, with Merkel as emperor.
    Luckily NATO is nothing without the USA military might, and European tax payers in general do not see the need for high military expenses.

  7. LondonBob says:

    Aye, Caro dutifully avoids any mention of Billy Sol Estes.

    Feel we are only scratching the surface of the Clintons still. If the internet and alt media had been better established I doubt even slick Willie could have been elected in 92.

  8. The last volume is almost finished. Each of those books is a superb piece of research and writing. It’s taken him around 35 years in total. The last volume (LBJ 1968-dead) ought to be coming out soon. And his biggest problem? Almost everyone that knew all the players is gone. Especially those who knew of LBJ’s ongoing corruptions to his end.

    • Replies: @anon
  9. Parsifal says:

    My main caveat with Mr. Brimelow’s article is his sympathetic view of the Vietnam war. It was an immoral war sold on a lie no smaller than Iraq WMDs. Other than that, it’s on the money, Trump really needs to come out swinging.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  10. I have always despised the English Foreigner Peter Brimelow. Brimelow is an unrepentant Cold Warrior. The Cold War…which imposed the the Civil Rights Act of 1964(Maxine Waters) on us… was a high speed highway-Route 1964-to the passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act=The Native Born White American Extermination Act.

    Donald Trump is not worth defending nor saving….

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @Wally
  11. @Parsifal

    The lies during the Vietnam War were significantly different from the lies justifying thd Iraq invasion. They were not fundamental in the sense of being legal prerequistes aimed at all thd countries of the world. They werefomestic politiczl acts to soften up the Ameticzn public. Furthermore the Vietnam war was already underway with American participation. And it was to defend a formally legitimate government.

  12. @War for Blair Mountain

    What in the Sam Hill did the Civil Rights Act have to do with the Cold War, Blair? Almost all of the Cold Warriors, and those who won it (on the foreign front, the domestic front was lost) were conservatives. They would not have wanted anything to do with the Black Civil Rights Act. That comment made no sense to me.

    Donald Trump is not worth defending nor saving….” The jury’s still out on this.

  13. @Wizard of Oz

    The South Vietnam goverment was not a legitimate goverment Mr. Real Politic. It could only be propped up by a massive expenditure of Tax Dollars and Native Born White American Working Class Teenage Male Canon Foder.

    The US won the Vietnam War for the simple reason that Vietnam was burnt and poisoned into a basket case. In 2017…..Vietnam is homo-normed and a popular destination for homosexual pedophile Reagan-Bush H and Bush W appointed Federal Judges on gay tourism honey moons…..mission accomplished!!!

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  14. @Achmed E. Newman

    There was a direct policy road from the The Cold War against the Russkies to the integration of the US Military….from here…a direct road to the passage of the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I am not talking off the top of my head about this. I remember listening to an episode of CSPAN books…where a Hamilton College Professor of History gave a talk-lecture about his new book that had just come out. He discussed all the internal US Goverment-US Military documents he had access where Goverment and US Military Policy Makers made it very clear that the Cold War against the Russkies required the integration of the US Military. America had to show it was morally superior to the evil Russkies!! He then went on to explain how the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act…the case that was publicly made for its passage…came out of the integration of the US Military….

    The urgent case for the passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act was based directly on the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    The jury should not be out on Donald Trump…Trump has committed war crimes on Syria and Yemen…He just recently gave Saudia Arabia=ISIS 100 billion dollars in military aid=WAR CRIMES+TREASON.

    Moreover…Trump ordered military excercises on Christian Russia’s borders…and his Sihk prostitute UN Ambassador Niki Haley has issued multiple threats to Christian Russia over Crimea….

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @bluedog
  15. MarkinLA says:

    The notion that the Vietnam War could have been won is ridiculous and it is sad that Brimlow continues to hang onto this nonsense.

    A member of my gun club is an ex-Chinese naval officer and he said that a significant number of Viet Cong were regular Chinese army dressed up as Cong. This is something I didn’t know. I wonder how many in the US did? Did the CIA know and keep it quiet so that we didn’t expand the war into China? The Chinese would be an endless supply of Cong such that the US was never going to win as long as Mao was willing to send his countrymen to their deaths. I think we all know about Mao’s respect for the life of the average Chinese.

  16. nsa says:

    Immigration to the USA should be severely curtailed…..starting with Brits like Brimmie. Scratch a Brit and you always come up with an imperialist….and a delusional imperialist at that. All evidence points to the loss of the Vietnam War on the battlefield, and the complete collapse of the US civilian military. All evidence points to the exceptional stupidity of a land war in asia. Evidence is no problem for a Brit imperialist…..just ignore it and assert we were stabbed in the back by an evil cabal in the US Knesset…er Congress. As to Nixon and Buchanan…..they are relics from a bygone age when white people were 90% of the population and Americans still worked for a living i.e. growing, building, repairing something. Times change…..the white silent majority has disappeared and so will the ragtag American empire.

  17. @War for Blair Mountain

    Listen, Blair, with all respect (as I agree with your last 2 paragraphs, basically), I was around then, Mr. Brimelow was not in America, but he was around. This indirect path from CW to CR/Immigration insanity is interesting from a vantage point of 5 decades, but it’s not the same as having lived then. I know who was on which side. I doubt the integration of the army was pushed solely for the Cold War, as soldiers already knew that it could be very bad for morale. White soldiers now how to watch their 6 O’clock in addition to ahead. Possibly the SJW-prototypes in the military brass wanted to push this to show that we were more progressive than the Soviets, but I doubt anyone with half a brain thought this.

    The immigration act of ’65 was pushed by the same crowd(s) as the ’64 Civil Rights act, but so what? That does not mean they had or wanted anything to do with the Cold War. LBJ wanted guns and butter, but the left wanted nothing to do with the guns part, as they pretended to believe that Communism was as good as the next -ism. The right wanted the guns part to stop Communism (it’s easy to say in hindsight that the Vietnam war was a mistake, but not at the time – things looked grim, with a big chunk of the globe having turned red by 1947). Yes, of course there was a MIC component that wanted things to look grimmer than they were for the free world. The right did not want the “butter” part, but they lost out due to the 1960’s mayhem.

    The right wanted nothing to do with these 2 P.O.S. legislation. Had Barry Goldwater won the presidency in 1964, this would have been a very different country, probably at least a few decades, until the domestic Commies regrouped.

    I meant the jury’s out on Trump’s domestic doings, but I do totally agree with you on his continuation of this invade-the-world-while-you’re-broke policy, and I can’t stand Nikki Haley. She was a big traitor to South Carolina, for another thing.

  18. @MarkinLA

    Who knows if your friend in the gun club knows what he’s talking about, Mark? Yes, the Vietnam war could have been won, but nobody at the top wanted all-out war. The rules were very constraining on the military, as opposed to how it was in WWII. Did we really want all-out war? Who can say, but of course, the US could have won.

    I’ll also say that I believe Brimelow, Buchanan, and the rest that lived during that era over your Naval Chinaman. The thing is, it could have ended with a truce like Korea, not a great thing, but better than leaving the S. Vietnamese to go it on their own, and having all the south taken over with 2 years of so of the “Vietnamization” of the war. Many French and English educated Vietnamese had to get out on a fishing boat into open ocean or be killed.

  19. @MarkinLA

    It is profoundly immoral and criminal to engage in a debate about whether or not the US Military could have won the Vietnam War…for Vietnam posed 0 threat to America. Despite this…the US Military burnt and poisoned Vietnam and the Vietnamese Civilian Population for over a decade. And this was the policy objective in Vietnam:transform Vietnam into an economic basket and a safe gay tourism destination for homosexual pedophile Log Cabin Republicans…mission accomplished. And it is for this reason that I despise the English Foreigner Peter Brimelow.

  20. Biff says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    nobody at the top wanted all-out war. The rules were very constraining on the military,

    Right… Carpet bombing isn’t “all-out war”. Along with carpet bombing with bombs and poison chemicals too.
    One massacre after another is all about respect for the locals.

    What was there to win again?

    • Replies: @bluedog
  21. Z-man says:
    @joe webb

    …and finally jews too. Hopefully, the White race traitors and jews get it first.

    That should include any gentile that likes/marries Jooz, lol!!

  22. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    How exactly is that worse?

  23. Z-man says:

    The policies that made Trump great;
    Build that wall.
    Make trade fair and balanced for America and protect American manufacturing.
    Make friends with Russia/Putin and manage existing conflicts better and get out of those nation building Neocohen wars.
    Tax the hedge fund managers to the hilt!
    Give a real tax break to the middle class not the top 2%.

    Come back to us Donald.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @bluedog
    , @Achmed E. Newman
  24. @Wally

    Yes I understand that point…but you can’t give Donald Trump a blank check to exterminate the Native Born White American Teenage Male Working Class Canon Fodder population on behalf of Jared Kushner’s Greater Israel…an issue that is now very much real for my family….

    The only viable alternative to these two 70 year fat fucking cockroaches is a Native White American Working Class Race Revolt….there are no other options….

    • Agree: bluedog
  25. @Achmed E. Newman

    How does one win a war against a whole people ?
    This is the big USA mistake.
    The French had made themselves deeply hated in Indochina.
    Paul Bonnecarrère, ´Par le sang versé, La Legion étrangère en Indochine’ , Paris, 1968, 2006
    Is is the mistake the USA makes again and again.
    USA idiots imagined that the USA conquerors would be received as liberators in Iraq.
    The USA did not win in Vietnam, it did not win in Afghanistan, not in Iraq, not in Libia.
    And in the war on terrorism, the USA can not subjugate 1.5 billion Muslims.
    De Gaulle deeply despised the USA, the country ‘that tries to solve anything by force’.

  26. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim Christian

    Iirc, he started interviewing people in Texas in 1974, and many of those people didn’t paint a pretty picture of Johnson as a child, or as a grown up.
    The problem with Robert Caro is that he is a Liberal shill, compare his previous book, The Power Broker, where he tears the subject, Robert Moses, to pieces.

  27. @War for Blair Mountain

    I did say “*formally* legitimate”. Wasn’t it the ptoduct of intetnational agreement (OK plus a bit of rdneging on zgreement and a couple of coups)?

    I don’t know what you know about Vieynam and its US visitors. I only got
    there recently becausre its national airline was advertising unbelievably good value air fares to London and I took the opportunity during Saigon stopovers to go to a tailor, eat some exotic food and visit the huge network of tunnels where the Viet Cong hid an hour up the Mekong fron the old heart of Saigon.

  28. LauraMR says:

    Are you speaking up for Native Americans?

  29. bluedog says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    Well the head choppers did give Trump a solid gold sword inlaid with diamonds worth $200 million just for the stones, and a yacht whose combines value was $1.2 billion so I read on the Indian Punchline, so I guess his trip paid off well for him anyway…

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  30. @jilles dykstra

    Since your handle is approximately the name of my most favorite algorithm…longest increasing subsequence right behind the shortest path algorithm in terms of favorites….I might as well use it as a useful metaphor in my response.

    The shortest path to evil in this world is to frame the Vietnam War as a question-debate about whether or not The US Military could have won the Vietnam War with enough bombs…napalm….and a few nuke strikes ordered by Dick Nixon….This is what one calls a greedy algorithm….

    The US invaded Vietnam in 1965…burnt…poisoned…napalmed Vietnam for 15 years…making Vietnam save for Homosexual Pedophile Male Log Cabin Republicans who take their husbands on gay tourism pedophile rape honey moons to pacified 2017 Vietnam…

    You wouldn’t happen to a practicising Satanist?…Would you?

    • Replies: @BenKenobi
  31. bluedog says:

    Of course they knew for the Chinese also had advisors there and a number were captured and of course LBJ was afraid of doing anything to bring China into the fray,when the JC’S wanted to use nuclear they said LBJ said what are you out of your GD minds and bring China into it…

  32. bluedog says:

    Of course it was constrained the 9th marines were on the DMZ but they couldn’t cross it nor fire across it even as they watched the trucks bring more weapons and ammunition for the VC they were fighting,thus they got slaughtered..

  33. bluedog says:

    Well Washington couldn’t tell a lie Nixon couldn’t tell the truth, and Trump can’t tell the difference so I wouldn’t get my hopes to high on Trump…

  34. BenKenobi says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    Dude, have a beer or somethin’.

    I ask in all sincerity: why are you always at rhetoric level 11/10?

    I certainly fall into your “Native Born White [Canadian] Teenage Male Working Class Canon Fodder” category. But there is still lots of fun to be had here at the twilight of civilization. We’re kind of in zugzwang at the moment, so we may as well enjoy life.

    PS: I keep my PT up and my 5-round grouping tight.

  35. MarkinLA says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Yes, the Vietnam war could have been won,

    First you need to define “win”. We didn’t win in Korea. We are still there and still screwing around wasting our resources.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  36. @jilles dykstra

    Sorry for the late reply, Jilles. (I can at least reply to you, WfBM has gone nutcase on me, and there’s no point).

    I am not talking about Afghanistan or Iraq. The Vietnam war was going on (US portion) about 15 years after China turned Red, the USSR was (at least seen as) a powerful force that wanted to take over the rest of the world and had already taken 1/3 of Europe. Southern Europe, especially Greece had its Communist party that was a near-thing. and Commies were always back and forth taking power in S. America,

    Things did not look bright for the Western world to continue. Hindsight is 20/20. I know quite a bit about the era, and I also know that Mr. Ho Chi Min was western-educated, had visited the US, etc., so it seems like there could have been a diplomatic solution early on. I never wrote that I thought this war was worth being fought, but that is from hindsight.

    Afghanistan and Iraq were, hell, still are, big distractions and just support of the MIC and a game for the neocons.

    You repliers to me should separate out in your minds the difference between the conservatives out to defend us against Communism (often making plenty of mistakes) vs. the modern neocons that are full 24/7/365/100 warfare. A lot has been forgot or not taught to the young ‘uns, apparently.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  37. @MarkinLA

    First you need to define “win”. We didn’t win in Korea. We are still there and still screwing around wasting our resources.

    The US prevented the peninsula of Korea from becoming Communist. If you do some reading, say, “This Kind of War” (sorry, can’t remember the author), you’ll find that the first year of this war had all of the strategic action.

    The N. Koreans almost took the whole peninsula in the summer of ’50, and the 1st American troops were left only a small section in the SE. Then, after the landing at Inchon, the Americans drove the Commies all the way up into China by around Christmas. I’m going by memory from this book, so I hope I’m close. Then, that winter, the Commies moved into all the hills S. of the Yalu River (border with China) – millions of troops infiltrated, and the US did not have much knowledge of this. That spring fighting began that drove the Americans and S. Korean troops further and further south. The line that is the current DMZ is within 50 miles back and forth from where the retreat stopped in summer of ’51.

    From then on there was 2 solid years of fighting over small hills back and forth near this line, and so many more lives were lost. Each side felt they had to attack still, and this was explained better than I can in that book.

    It wasn’t a win like the defeat of Nazi Germany, no. It could have just become Communist, the whole peninsula. Whether, just like Vietnam, things would be much different by this day-and-age, I don’t know.

    I completely agree with your last sentence. There is no reason for US troops to be there, even if you make the date the end of the Cold War, say 1989. That’s 28 years of 25,000 soldiers supported by US taxpayers for what? To defend a country that has a HUGE trade surplus with us, about like most countries in Asia, and can take care of itself. I’m with Ron Paul on all that stuff.

  38. @Z-man

    All your examples of Trump’s reneging on promises are correct, of course, but I’ll go sort of with Bluedog’s reply. It’s possible this guy doesn’t know the difference between truth and lies at the high political level – he is a businessman, and many get success not by attention to detail, but by listening to those they think are the experts.

    Trump does not have enough confidence in his political principles (the ones we voted him in for) to trust his ideas over those of the people that seem smarter to him – the beltway insiders who have been there 30 years. Yeah, they are smart, but they are evil too, and their ideas should not be followed if you’re going to Make American (even close to) Great Again.

    • Agree: Z-man
  39. @Achmed E. Newman

    The US should have stayed out of the Korean Civil War. If Dear Leader had conquered South Korea…that would have been great, for it would have meant that 0 South Korean Legal Immigrants would have come to the US, and as a consequence, there would be hardly any Koreans in America voting The Historic Native Born White American Majority into a racial minority every four years at POTUS election time.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  40. @Achmed E. Newman

    Stalin indeed wanted to control the world, but he died in 1953, probably murdered.
    After the Cuba crisis, where Kennedy made a peaceful deal with Chrustjow, USSR rockets from Cuba, USA rockets from Turkey, the Cold War was in fact over.
    Alas, the west, Deep State, at the time the name did not exist, continued what Roosevelt was brought into politics for, USA control of the world.
    This continuation brough the USSR on its knees, a communist central control system can produce weapons, it cannot efficiently produce consumer goods, central planning cannot do what capitalism can.
    In 1990 I still was quite naïve, expected NATO to be dissolved, no enemy any more.
    Now, 2017, USA attempts to control the whole world have driven Russia and China together, has ruined the USA economically and politically.
    Trump and his rich friends are not philantropists, they just see, is my opinion, that going on like this will ruin them personally too.
    So what we see now is, in my perception, the biggest change of course in USA history, ‘manifest destiny’ thrown over board.
    Of course this causes great uncertainty and resistance all over the world.
    Will Trump succeed in really changing USA policy drastically, will he waver, will he be deposed ?
    Nobody right now can be sure.

    BTW, Ho Chi Min’s deep hatred for the west surprised me
    Paul Bonnecarrère, ´Par le sang versé, La Legion étrangère en Indochine’ , Paris, 1968, 2006
    until I read
    Anthony Grey, ‘Saigon, Een grootse roman over Vietnam in de periode 1925 – 1975’, Amsterdam 1987
    French behaviour in Indochina explains his deep hatred quite well.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  41. BTW, Ho Chi Min’s deep hatred for the west surprised me

    There should be little surprise there given his experience with colonialism, Woody Wilson’s arrogant rejection of his appeals for aid, and the West’s never ending hypocrisy and violence to name just a few reasons.

    As for those engaged in the never ending yapping about a US victory in the Vietnam war, one must first define the “victory” yer referring to (e.g., profits for the bankers and war hawks) and then recall that a military victory would have been difficult given the quality of US troops and lack of political support at home. To a large extent guys on the ground had no heart in it and many spent their days in a fairly perpetual drug haze.

    Another little known aspect of the military loss is that US troops themselves did a lot of damage to the cause through such things as fragging, general screwing around, avoiding work in typical military fashion, avoiding confrontation (the pretty boy officers were generally as bad in that respect as the grunts), and sabotage (bravo to them).

    As usual, the people of the US and Vietnam lost that war. Period.

    The American patriot and historian had this to say about standing armies, and she said much more as well. In all cases, she was spot on.:

    “There was certainly a class who aimed not so much to promote the honor of the national character, as to establish the basis of a standing army, and other projects approaching to despotic sway, which cannot be supported in America, without the aid of that dangerous engine.”

    Mercy Otis Warren, History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution vol. 2> C H A P T E R X X X I

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  42. Agent76 says:

    Since Nixon is part of the article I have a great comparison with the former Obama.

    May 28, 2013 Nixon and Obama: Like brothers from another mother

    Many pundits and journalists, including CBS’ Bob Schieffer, have drawn parallels between the Obama White House’s handling of scandals plaguing the administration and Former President Nixon’s management of Watergate. We looked back in the archives to see just how close they were.

  43. @jacques sheete

    There should be little surprise there given his experience with colonialism, Woody Wilson’s arrogant rejection of his appeals for aid, and the West’s never ending hypocrisy and violence to name just a few reasons.

    Do you ever read your own writing, Jack? Believe me, I’ve got no respect for Woodrow Wilson and believe he was with the crowd that caused the long-term downfall of our country (Fed Reserve, Fed Income Tax, entering WWI, all of this). However, why, if you don’t like any of the colonization and interference in other countries affairs, would you say the US should have aided Ho Chi Min? Do you want interference or do you not want interference? Aid is just as much interference as colonization, and there is no sharp line between them.

    Much of the bad behavior of the US Military was due to the integrated units. You can read about that, or talk to guys who were soldiers, sailors, or airmen in SE Asia. What’s the deal with the drugs? Have you got a problem with drugs? There were a lot of brave soldiers in VietNam – you just don’t hear their stories as much, and the political support at home was mostly for the war, until “5th column” got on board with our cultural revolution that took place in the mid and late 1960’s. Definitely, most Americans were against the war by the early 70’s though. Nobody wanted to make the political move to turn tail, and get out, leaving the S. Vietnamese to die or be imprisoned. It was either win it all out, with more manpower and weapons, or fight with the constraints on the military, as we did until 1973. The Commies were in bad shape around the time of the Tet Offensive back in 1968 even, which was not a win for them – we were just told it was by Walter Cronkite, and couldn’t get truth quickly on-line. That bit of work from the Lyin’ Press changed attitudes at home. There were peace talks going on in Paris for years running.

    War is a terrible thing all around, I and do think this could have been avoided, maybe not by the French, but America could have stayed out.

    You’ve got a lot of information but not the big picture, Jack. It’d be like writing about what people should have done differently at Waterloo, without being a historian that specialized in the 19th century wars in Europe or having been there (not likely).

  44. @jilles dykstra

    Jilles, good post with one major error. The Cold War was over in 1962? I think 95% of people over 50 y/o would beg to differ with you here. Mr. Khruschev says “we will bury you”, Mr. Sting sang said and he was the Soviet Premier a couple of years after the tyrant Stalin. Khruschev and later Brezhnev lightened up on the Russian people a tad ( not nearly as many purges just out of underconfidence, including executions of the best of the army ), but there was no stop to the cold war, until Mr. Gorbachev in 1985. Almost all American foreign policy from 1947 to 1989 was about containing Communism as the big picture.

    I know what you’re saying about the Deep State and MIC wanting this all to continue. I agree they did. It didn’t help that there were two crowds in America that wanted to make, via propaganda, the Soviet Union into a stronger country in American’s minds than it really was. There was the hard-left internal Commies that had infested the country since their arrivals 4-6 decades prior as immigrants with their leaders such as Lyin’ Press Rep. Walter Duranty. Then there were the Military and weapons manufacturers.

    The former wanted people to “know” what a great system Communism was – “It’s working just peachy over there. They all love it; so much, nobody can wants to leave!” “Let’s try some of this shit over here; it’ll be great!” “What an economy! – Central Planning: what can’t it do?”

    The latter wanted to keep the fear up among Americans – “There’s a big, big ballistic missile gap; we need 50 megaton ones!” “More tanks down here; the Russians may come through this way!” “We need 50 more military bases around the world; you never know where the next conflict will be.” The MIC weren’t as complete liars as the US Commie/left, but they did have many who wanted the whole thing to continue, as job security.

    About the Deep State. Yeah, who knows the actual names of the organizations and people who are part of it – it’s DEEP. That crowd just had to continue the whole Cold War effort after 1989, without any Communist enemy trying to encircle the globe any longer. So, they would just make up the enemies as they went along, and that’s what’s been happening for 3 decades now. This crowd is mostly NEOCONS now, people who were never conservative during the cold war. Many of this crowd were yelling at rallies for the US to unilaterally disarm back in the 70’s and ’80’s. Well, they were young and stupid then. Now they are old and evil.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  45. @War for Blair Mountain

    The US should have stayed out of the Korean Civil War. If Dear Leader had conquered South Korea…that would have been great, for it would have meant that 0 South Korean Legal Immigrants would have come to the US, and as a consequence, there would be hardly any Koreans in America voting The Historic Native Born White American Majority into a racial minority every four years at POTUS election time.

    Man, you try to link a major event with a very minor issue. I knew a number of American-born Koreans and they seem like the conservative type, but even if you’re correct about their voting habits, they are the least of your worries. The number of Koreans in this country is becoming miniscule next to the number of Chinese.

    Brimelow has probably got an idea of these numbers in his head, as working to stop the immigration insanity and replacement of the American people is (at least for the last 2 decades) his life’s work via Instead of getting into a quagmire in about Vietnam, why don’t you thank him for his efforts, instead of going on, fairly erroneously about the Cold War?

    What have you been doing to help on the immigration problem?

    I’ll get you started: Thanks, Peter Brimelow. Keep up the good work at VDare!

  46. @bluedog

    The Saudis gave Trump personally $1.2 Billion in goods? Sources and evidence.

    • Replies: @bluedog
  47. @Achmed E. Newman

    Chrustjow meant to bury capitalism.
    Fedor Burlatsky, ‘Khrushchev and the First Russian Spring, The era of Khrushchev through the eyes of his advisor’, 1988, London 1991

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  48. @Achmed E. Newman

    Koreans are a highly RACIALIZED Democratic Party Voting Party Voting Bloc enthusiastically voting The Historic Native Born White American Majority into a racial minority Nov 3 2020…2024..2030..

    Their numbers are large enough to be noticeable….

    There was are no economic…social….cultural reasons to import Korean Legal Immigrants…

    They are a highly racialized Democratic Party Voting Bloc that The Historic Native Born White American Working Class has to compete with for the scarce LIVING AND BREEDING SPACE in NY…CALIFORNIA….AND NJ…whole towns have gone homogeneous Korean

    If the Koreans weren’t in America…America would go back to developing Native Born White American Youth for careers in…engineering…and medicine…

    Go live in Korea of you want to live among Koreans you Cuck…

    In the summertime….when I go kayaking in Port Jervis NY on the Delaware…I don’t enjoy being surrounded by raft after raft full Korean “American” youth on a Weekend nature outings with their Korean Youth Church group from NJ…

    Just down the road from Mrs and Mrs Derbyshire is the Greenbelt trail…that now has been taken completely over by the Koreans on the weekends…go walk the trails….and if your Native Born White American…and not a cuck….you will have the unpleasant experience of being a racial foreigner in the nation you were born and raised in….same thing on the Skyline Highway in the bucolic Shenandoah Valley…

  49. @War for Blair Mountain

    What was the demographics of America in 1969…when America landed two Alpha Native Born White American Males on the Moon….ten more after that…. In 2017…2020…2024 Asian “Americans” are voting Democratic to make a certainty that this never happens again with a 1969 racial demographics…

    Paul Kersey and Richard Spencer remain silent on Asian Legal Immigrants….Two more GD CUCKS…

  50. @War for Blair Mountain

    Go live in Korea of you want to live among Koreans you Cuck…
    In the summertime….when I go kayaking in Port Jervis NY on the Delaware…I don’t enjoy being surrounded by raft after raft full Korean “American” youth on a Weekend nature outings with their Korean Youth Church group from NJ…

    You have no sense of scale, Blair. I don’t doubt you on those locations – just like there’s a bunch of Americans in some selected towns in Costa Rica, or in Guadalajara Mexico.

    ….and if your Native Born White American…and not a cuck….you will have the unpleasant experience of being a racial foreigner in the nation you were born and raised in…

    I’m sorry if you don’t get along with these Koreans and want to live among your own people. I respect that. You are justified. But, you just are looking at small numbers while there are WAY WAY BIGGER numbers of Mexicans and Central Americans. Do you know what 2-3 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE is, Blair? That’s 100 to 1000 times more. I think you’re innumerate, and innumerate people should be kicked off of intelligent blogs like dead squirrels off the back porch.

    You’re talking church groups and VDare writes about M-13 gangs from El Salvador!

    Miami has been Cubanized since way back. I didn’t read anything by you relating the Cubans coming to Miami to the Cold War, but it was definitely related. In 1980 during the Muriel boat-lift something like over 100,000 Cuban convicts and other malcontents (well, who’d be contented in Cuba) came to Florida in a short time period. Fidel was not sending his best – I guarantee you – the best were languishing in prison!

    … you will have the unpleasant experience of being a racial foreigner in the nation you were born and raised in….

    Hey, you’re preaching to the choir from your lazy-boy via the internet. Meanwhile VDare writers have been writing, speaking and contacting politicians about this stuff for > 15 years.

    ….same thing on the Skyline Highway in the bucolic Shenandoah Valley…

    That sucks, but the how big is the Shenandoah Valley (yes, I know the answer – this is rhetorical) compared to 2/3 of California, 1/2 of Arizona, all of N. Mexico and a big chunk of Texas? Do you have any idea of scale?

    This post finally came back to immigration, and I ask again “so this is Memorial Day, and what have you done?” I haven’t read an answer from you, so I think all you did was give Mr. Brimelow a hard time about your whacked-out theories on the Cold War, which completely de-railed the comment section, and I had to correct your dumbass half the day long. I’ve got to mow the yard, so hold your innumerate thoughts for a spell, mmmkayy?

  51. @jilles dykstra

    Chrustjow meant to bury capitalism.

    Exactamudo! What was the capital of capitalism? (and free markets, till about the 1970’s) The US economy was the only big non-socialist economy around – that’s who he was out to bury, as we made the Communist system look bad. Only thing is, he had a Commie-built spade, which was rusted-out with a loose handle.

    Without us, say if you lived in Red China as a peasant in the sticks in 1950-1980, you may have had no knowledge of anywhere in the world where things were better (you know, no money for broadband and all that.) In that case “the Iron Rice Bowl” system was the best lifestyle you knew about, until Chairman Mao (R.I.H.) screwed it up a few times and starved 40,000,000 or so of you.

    When the peasants find out they are being screwed, it may take a while, but trouble will be coming to the people that are “a little more equal than the others”.

    BTW, how many ways did that particular Premier spell his name? Is he like MooHeeMore CaDoffHee, with the political advantage of having an infinite number of spellings?

  52. Agent76 says:

    Feb 3, 2017 How Trump Filled The Swamp

    With promises to “drain the swamp!” still ringing in our ears, we have watched Trump appoint nothing but Goldman banksters, Soros stooges, neocon war hawks and police state zealots to head his cabinet.

  53. bluedog says:

    Politics =Indian Punchline..

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  54. Sam J. says:

    The talk about the Vietnam war here is absurd. Total Democrat talking points. Haven’t you people ever seen a map of Vietnam? Vietnam had one of the best ports in Asia and sits astride the major Asia, Western trade routes. The USSR had over 20,000 nuclear missiles pointed at us. They had guerilla wars all over the place. They were winning. We decided to fight them in Vietnam to slow them down and it worked partially. A lot of the Southeastern countries defeated their Communist guerilla forces while the Vietnam war was going on and now while they aren’t all perfect they beat the reeducation camps of the Commies.

    After the Tet offensive the Viet Cong were mostly gone. The attacks were mostly from the North. When the North attacked and the South fell it was the biggest agglomeration of tanks since WWII and the battle of Kursk. The reason the South lost was the Democratic Congress refused to allow Ford to use American air power and Nixon was gone. There’s only a few roads leading to the South. They were completely jammed with tanks and troop trucks. It was a complete turkey shoot. Ford was told he would be impeached if he used air power to stop them so the South fell. The Democrats had been saying the war could never be won and by God they were not going to be proven wrong. The Democrats voted a completely inadequate amount of arms(basically none at all), the South Vietnamese ran out of ammunition and were beaten. This did not have to happen. With a minimal of air power the North could have been completely routed. It might have set them back so far they would have never tried again.

    The idea that the Vietnam vets died for nothing is a huge psyops by the Democrats. The South had defeated all the guerillas. All they needed was support to hold off the North and the Democrats sold them out. If the South Vietnamese had not fell it’s very likely that the Cambodian Genocide would have never happened.

    • Replies: @bluedog
    , @MarkinLA
  55. bluedog says:
    @Sam J.

    Man you should get a job at one of the institutes of higher learning, and take over their propaganda program for you sure know how to twist the facts to suit your own agenda…

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  56. bluedog says:

    Sorry about that Indian-Punchline a blog by M.K. Bhadrakumar

  57. Sam J. says:

    What exactly do you see twisted? Your comment is very much of the “point and shriek” variety. It does not inspire confidence that you have any persuasive argument at all for anything.

    • Replies: @bluedog
  58. First, I was around back then.

    The American public (according to polls) supported the Vietnam War strongly from Spring 1965 when American ground troops were introduced in numbers, to early 1968. Even during Nixon’s presidency, the (silent) majority backed him.

    The American public would have preferred the war to end, but wanted an “honorable” end.

    In the 1972 election, Nixon defeated the most outspoken antiwar Democrat, George McGovern, by a 49-state landslide.

    The antiwar movement, with some exceptions, never had (until late in the war) much support among the troops or their families. The middle and working classes never liked the antiwar protesters.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  59. bluedog says:
    @Sam J.

    Oh yes we could have won in another twenty years perhaps we could have bombed our way right up to the Chinese border, but we remember how well that worked out in Korea seeing there were already Chinese troops and advisors in N.V.. and instead of 58,000 dead and over a hundred thousand wounded we could have had i50,000 thousand dead and 200,00 thousand wounded , and instead of having 58,000+ plus who couldn’t fight the demons in their heads when they came back opted out by taking their own lives (Kill Anything That Moves by Nick Turse) it could have been doubled that, and just what would we have won, and as far as the so called silent majority those are the ones who will go along with anything as long as it dosen’t disturb their little world.The only question that begs to be answered is were you there do you know what it was like for most of those that shriek we could have won were somewhere else.

  60. MarkinLA says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Over 50,000 US men who probably couldn’t find Korea on a map before the war died for nothing. Many more were maimed. Nothing of value to the US came out of that war. “Stopping communism” is BS if like the propaganda says: communism is bound to fail.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  61. MarkinLA says:
    @David In TN

    The American public would have preferred the war to end, but wanted an “honorable” end.

    You have to remember the relentless brainwashing the government utilized on the public to keep support for the war going. Nobody of any significance was willing to admit the war was a failure and could never be won and that it was known before the war even started. Nobody was willing to say: Your dead son died for nothing – deal with it.

    This is no different than all our wars of choice.

  62. MarkinLA says:
    @Sam J.

    The idea that the Vietnam vets died for nothing is a huge psyops by the Democrats.

    No it probably is the feeling of most of the family members of those dead soldiers especially after they research all the lies the government used to get us there and keep us there. I imagine only a few cling to the idea that their son or father died for a noble cause.

    I believe it was the Vietnamese who stopped the killing in Cambodia. It was our presence in Cambodia that destroyed the fragile peace that weakened the monarchy and allowed the Khmer Rouge to take over.

    • Agree: bluedog
  63. @MarkinLA

    Mark, Communism is bound to fail as an economic system, but that doesn’t mean a Communist dominated world will just end and freedom will come to pass. The world could have turned into a place that makes Orwell’s Oceana look like a paradise. Communism got defeated on the outside, for the US, but unfortunately not enough people saw the attack coming from the inside. We’re gonna pay a high prive for that.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  64. MarkinLA says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    No matter how many times this Red Menace BS is trotted out in all it’s variations, I still get a laugh out of it every time.

    • Agree: bluedog
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  65. Whoriskey says:

    I was struck by Lee Kuan Yew’s view –

    In his autobiography, Lee Kuan Yew noted that Singapore and other Asian countries were saved from communism by the Vietnam war:6

    “Although American intervention failed in Vietnam, it bought time for the rest of Southeast Asia. In 1965, when the U.S. military moved massively into South Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines faced internal threats from armed communist insurgencies, and the communist underground was still active in Singapore . . . America’s action [in Vietnam] enabled non-communist Southeast Asia to put their own houses in order. By 1975, they were in better shape to stand up to the communists. Had there been no U.S. intervention, the will of these countries to resist them would have melted and Southeast Asia would most likely have gone communist. The prosperous emerging market economies of A.S.E.A.N. were nurtured during the Vietnam War years.”

    • Replies: @bluedog
  66. bluedog says:

    Hmm and what difference would it have made if they did go communist, for as in Nam it would have been short lived at best, but was it worth it ? ask the American dead and wounded for they could give you a better answer I’m sure and not one you would have liked…

  67. @MarkinLA

    No matter how many times this Red Menace BS is trotted out in all it’s variations, I still get a laugh out of it every time.

    That’s easy for you to say, Mark, 3 decades after President Ronnie Reagan, Conrad Adenauer, Lech Wałesa, the Pope (the Patriotic Pollock, not the Commie f__k they’ve got now) and millions of American and W. European soldiers, sailors, and airmen put an end to that menace.

    On their behalf – You’re welcome, Mark, now sit down.

    Oh, and Joe McCarthy tried to handle it on the domestic front, along with Barry Goldwater, but the Lyin’ Press was having none of it.

Current Commenter

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Brimelow Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?