The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
George Bush: In-Box President or Grand Strategist?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
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

George H.W. Bush was president during a tumultuous and triumphant era for American foreign policy. His reign didn’t last long but it set a number of precedents that his successor Bill Clinton mostly followed.

My impression is that Bush didn’t come to the Oval Office with too many long range plans, but instead simply had a lot of confidence in his ability to manage in whatever circumstances came up. And indeed he enjoyed a number of successes, such as getting Gorbachev to take merely an oral assurance that NATO would not expand eastward rather than demand it in writing. But that was winging it.

One country where Bush did have much experience and a personal strategy would appear to be the one that is being largely ignored in all the write-ups about the President’s life: Mexico.

The idea that American businessmen and pro-business politicians would be interested in Mexico seems fairly alien today, but it used to be common knowledge. For example, in 1910 the New York Times praised a book of tributes to the dictator of Mexico, Porfirio Diaz, from people like Andrew Carnegie and former secretary of state Elihu Root for opening Mexico up to American business:

PORFIRIO DIAZ, President of the Mexican Republic, should be a very happy man, for he not only enjoys the ardent admiration of the civilized world but knows he has fairly earned, it. No public servant ever had more perfect reward, than his, and no public servant ever was more deserving. It would be hard to exaggerate his deserts, so great and wonderful have been the results of his life’s work for his country. … The well-informed person knows that nobody can write about Diaz with praising him in generous phrases.

A few months later the decade long Mexican Revolution broke out killed a million or more Mexicans.

But the Bush family felt that the despite the unfortunate events of 1910-1920 and of 1938, when foreign oil companies were expropriated, geography inextricably linked the economic and perhaps political destinies of the United States and Mexico.

 
Hide 122 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Like you’ve noted before, life is good in Mexico for the upper crust, and lots of money can be made there. But there’s also that Spanish conquistador element running very strongly through it, so biz in Mexico is a dicey proposition.

    I know white folks with land holdings in Mexico who made sure their kids were born in Mexico to preserve citizenship, and thus full ownership, not one of those 99-year lease agreements.

    Not too sure about now, but growing up, solidly middle class (to us) mall anchor stores (JC Penney, Sears, etc.) and a few upper class stores in South Texas were among the top earners in the nation because Mexican nationals had a hard time getting decent quality merchandise in their own country. If Wal-Mart was allowed to go in whole hog, it would kill the small biz in Mexico.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Because of NAFTA, Wal-Mart is in Mexico now bigtime:

    Walmart de México y Centroamérica, also known as Walmex, Walmart's largest division outside the U.S. as of October 31, 2018, consists of 2,397 stores around the country, including 272 Walmart Supercenter stores and 163 Sam's Club stores
     
    From the wiki.

    Many of the 2,400 stores are smaller format stores that have no equivalent in the US but still they are a very big player in the Mexican retail and grocery sectors and have over 200,000 employees.
    , @Anonymous
    Growing up latterly in the St. Louis area (West County-the heavily Jewish Creve Coeur and Ladue were close by but we had mostly German and Irish/Italian Catholics and several flavors of Protestant: I can remember the now mostly deceased Church of Christ Scientist still had a big building with apparently good turnouts from the parking lot, but I knew more Jews than Christian Scientists, and not a one under fifty even then) one of the Jewish kids told me that he had an uncle who owned a used car lot.

    About twice a year they'd round up a few old duffers who were game and take a caravan of cars and trucks down to Mexico, loaded up with tools and appliances and whatever, and come back with wads of cash. It was illegal to import used cars and the other stuff was tariffed heavily. The trick was for the old duffers to get back out of Mexico without the cars, because their documents were marked that they had the cars. That was the secret of the scam.
  2. OT

    Five years ago! The pain is still indescribable.

    Paul William Walker IV (September 12, 1973 – November 30, 2013) was an American actor best known for his role as Brian O’Conner in The Fast and the Furious franchise. Walker first gained prominence in 1999 with roles in the teen films She’s All That and Varsity Blues. In 2001, he gained international fame for his role in the street racing action film The Fast and the Furious (2001), a role he reprised in five of the next six installments, but died in 2013 in the middle of filming Furious 7 (2015).

    His legacy lives on! He died a heroic death trying to bring about a better world, and as a result we still enjoy the Paul Walker jokes in the iSteve comment section. It’s an inspiration for us all to constantly improve ourselves and drive wonderful cars.

    • Agree: Ben Tzot-Abrit
    • Replies: @Hgh
    Was Paul Walker related to George Herbert Walker Bush?
    , @gate666
    did sailer ever write about walker.
    , @Autochthon
    It's still too soon!
  3. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    As the RIP thread resumes, a clarifying question: What is, and how do the people of this country benefit from, a “triumphant era for American foreign policy”?

    Very few on this website bought into the celebration of Senator McCain. But a former President dies, and it’s time to hotstove his Risk stats.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    But a former President dies, and it’s time to hotstove his Risk stats.
     
    What do you mean?
    , @bomag

    What is, and how do the people of this country benefit from, a “triumphant era for American foreign policy”?
     
    I suppose it could be asked of any country.

    The success stories are when you move and populate another place. If you just win some military battles and garrison the place, not so much.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I personally think it's because even bloggers and commenters watch too much of the Lyin' Press, and if this mournful infotainment goes on for a full week there, they think it's important. Not only do I think this ex-President's death is not important, but I think all of the revering of Presidents great and stupid is against anything the Founders of our country would have encouraged.

    The hell with all of them, going back till (arguably) Silent Calvin Coolidge or Andrew Jackson.
  4. George H. W. ‘Poppy’ Bush was a very mixed bag. On the one hand, he was a card-carrying Rockefeller globalist; but on the other hand, he was competent enough at it that, compared with what followed, he came off like statesman of the first order. For example, he was enough of a globalist to take us to war in Iraq, thereby installing the very first US bases in the ME. But he was still enough of a realist to avoiding actually invading the country, which infuriated the neocons. (And then, for good measure, he actually insisted on suspending loan guarantees to Israel until they temporarily halted illegal settlement construction on the West Bank–that really PO’d the neocon crowd!)

    And indeed he enjoyed a number of successes, such as getting Gorbachev to take merely an oral assurance that NATO would not expand eastward rather than demand it in writing. But that was winging it.

    I always found this a strange talking point. Is a US president’s word worth nothing anymore? And if you can’t trust his verbal promise, what makes you think you can trust his written promise either? After all, didn’t Baby Bush later renege on the ABM treaty? That was in writing. Was it just another ‘Injun treaty’?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The Cuban crisis was resolved by an oral agreement. The Russians would remove the nukes from Cuba, while the Americans would remove the same from Turkey. The US also promised never to invade Cuba. Interestingly, they didn’t invade Cuba even after the USSR fell.

    The Soviets/Russians had every reason to believe that the word of an American president was worth a lot.
    , @Mr McKenna

    he actually insisted on suspending loan guarantees to Israel until they temporarily halted illegal settlement construction on the West Bank
     
    As a result, he enjoyed the undying enmity of the 'Israel First' crowd in the USA (which of course includes the major media) and their partisans swore he would never be re-elected. Guess who won that one?

    Even if Poppy were everything his fans say, it's still true that he perpetrated W and that's enough to ruin anyone's reputation forever.

    , @Busby
    The US left the ABM treaty under provisions written into the terms of the treaty.
    , @AnotherDad

    For example, he was enough of a globalist to take us to war in Iraq, thereby installing the very first US bases in the ME. But he was still enough of a realist to avoiding actually invading the country, which infuriated the neocons.
     
    I always find this backhanded praise of Bush's judgement in the first Gulf War bizarre. The failure to oust Saddam was a disaster.

    What was the "message" from the Gulf War? Roughly, if you grab up your neighbor's territory, the US *may*--if the pres feels like US prestige is on the line--stir himself, assemble a coalition of nations and kick you out ... but leave you in power! So, you know, do your calculation carefully, but if the odds look good … go for it!

    Basically the Gulf War was the classic "wounding the bear". We created an enemy, who we had to police in perpetuity, who was eventually--as other nations got tired of the sanctions regime--going to get his oil money flowing giving him a big wallet and who now was pissed at us, with a big chip on his shoulder. Great work Poppy!

    No. You either don't do it and take the hit to your prestige with the Gulf Arab oil pumping kleptocrats. Or you do it and make sure you kill or at least oust Saddam. Not "fix Iraq" or "nation build", but basic crime and punishment: you messed things up and made me us get up and cost the lives of American boys, you pay.
  5. Anon[219] • Disclaimer says:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/douthat-the-cult-deficit/?highlight=Spierig

    This is a fascinating Trankenstein film:

    Based on Heinlein story with stylistic elements borrowed from LA JETEE and FACE OF ANOTHER.

    Directed by set of brothers, identical ones. Fitting as the story is about self and self.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spierig_Brothers

  6. LA riots made him look weak, especially after tough guy act of Gulf War.

    His son also acted tough abroad but was looked esp weak with Katrina and Negroes.

    Last Republican to win California.

    Trump will be last one to win Texas and Florida.

    Tragedy of American Conservatism is white conservatives do most to defend and defer to Jews who do most to demean and destroy white conservatives.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "LA riots made him look weak, especially after tough guy act of Gulf War.

    His son also acted tough abroad but was looked esp weak with Katrina and Negroes."
     
    By design, the US Presidency was supposed to have the character of a monarch abroad to contend with foreign powers, but be weak and limited at home to prevent tyranny. Whatever else their faults, the Bushes--consciously or not--still subscribed to this maxim: strength abroad, deference at home.


    Obama, the Clintons, other Dem candidates have reversed the formula for the Executive: weak against foreigners, powerful against the natives. As one might expect from those who view the natives as hostile aliens and view foreigners as incipient allies.
    , @South Texas Guy
    The weakness perception in regard to the LA riots was that he buckled after the four cops were found not guilty in state court, and then directed the justice department to bring them up on federal charges.

    Also brings up the point, how come it would be evil for Trump to direct justice dept. to investigate charges against some people, but this got/is swept under the rug?
    , @Digital Samizdat

    Tragedy of American Conservatism is white conservatives do most to defend and defer to Jews who do most to demean and destroy white conservatives.
     
    Which is one of many, many reasons why I don't consider myself an American Conservative.
    , @res

    Last Republican to win California.
     
    That intrigued me so I looked at other states. The table at this Wikipedia page makes it fairly easy to track presidential party elections results by state and year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_results_by_state

    If I read correctly, the 1988 election was the last Republican victory for the following states:

    California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Vermont

    Some of the other patterns are interesting as well. For instance, Iowa went D in every election from 1988 to 2016 except 2004 and 2016. Any thoughts on that?

    Some of the regional patterns are also interesting. For example, the Northeast (CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT) went 100% R in 1984, 6/3 R/D in 1988, but has seen only 2 R victories since then (NH 2000 and PA 2016).

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Tragedy of American Conservatism is white conservatives do most to defend and defer to Jews who do most to demean and destroy white conservatives.
     
    What is your prescription?
    , @Achmed E. Newman

    LA riots made him look weak, especially after tough guy act of Gulf War.
     
    Nah. It was none of his business, whatever happened during those riots. I agree with A.M. on this. He didn't win California because the demographics were changing already. The illegal alien invasion goes way back, and the Reagan-signed 1986 amnesty was already "bearing fruit" for the D's.

    Bush did not win the election in 1992 for these reasons:

    1) People DID remember that he lied with that "read my lips, no new taxes" bit. We were still not used to ALL of them being liars yet. Now we are.

    2) Ross Perot got something like 19% of the vote, taking much more from the R-side than the D-side. Bill Clinton got 43%, if my memory is on point.

    3) He had already been blowing the promised peace dividend, and I think people though an old-fashioned (yeah, 'cept he wasn't) Democrat would change that. Haha, yeah, right?

    4) I'm only one guy, but as I wrote already, some of his proto-globalist crap was not sitting well with people like me. As Steve wrote, his family has big Mexican connections, or at least interests. When I heard him speak in Spanish at some campaign event, even for those 15 seconds or whatever it was, I was pissed. He lost my vote in those 15 seconds. In about 3 seconds of that, my thoughts went: "Hey, why's he pandering to foreigners for the American Presidential election? Or, if they're not foreigners, but just don't speak any English while living in America, f__k these people, and why's he pandering to them? He is not on my side!" Yeah, you can think much faster than you can read.

    I guess you could lump (4) into (2), come to think of it. I really miss Ross Perot. That'd be a guy for whom I'd be sad about when he leaves this world.
  7. My impression is that Bush didn’t come to the Oval Office with too many long range plans, but instead simply had a lot of confidence in his ability to manage in whatever circumstances came up.

    My impression was that HW Bush (as a card-carrying member of the old establishment) saw the end of the Cold War as an opportunity to transition into a new era. An era in which the nations of the world could be linked together through trade, investment, migration, technology, and political-economic unions (such as NAFTA and NATO). He attempted to be a “big picture” architect of that new era.

    In that era, financiers, business interests, entrepreneurs, and technocrats would profit under a global Pax Americana. As third world economies grew, workers in the world’s less developed regions would increase their purchasing power and create new markets. If threats arose to the order, those threats could be neutralized through broad military alliances (like the Gulf War coalition).

    At this point, it’s been around 25-30 years since this “New World Order” came into being. For better and for worse, this era of globalization was initiated by HW Bush, with subsequent presidents (Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama) carrying on his legacy. You could say that other foreign leaders, especially from the Anglo-Euro zone, have been extremely supportive. For example, John Major and Tony Blair helped transition the UK (and even other parts of the Anglo-Euro zone) into the age of globalization.

    One reason that Donald Trump is viewed so negatively by the global establishment is because he’s an affront to globalization. He threatens an order under which many influential people have become politically and economically enriched. The same can be said for other far-right figures (Le Pen of France, Farage of the UK, , Salvini of Italy, etc). The same can even be said of Russia and China, with both regimes being nationalist-authoritarian “renegades” who refuse to bend their knee to US-Anglo-Euro order.

    Interestingly, the far-left is also viewed as an affront to globalization. While the far-left isn’t viewed with the same intensity of negativity, far-left individuals and organizations tend to be dismissed as being “fringe” or “extremist.” Just look at how anti-globalization protesters are portrayed anytime there’s a trade summit.

    There’s often a strange convergence between the far-left and far-right. Back in the 2000 election, both Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan sounded remarkably similar. In 2016, there were more than a few times when Donald Trump spoke like Bernie Sanders. In 2017, Brexit enjoyed support from both the British far-right and the far-left. While the far-right and far-left differ in their racial and cultural attitudes, there’s a shared revulsion towards financiers, oligarchs, military interventionism, and globalist institutions.

    HW Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama had their differences. What brought them together (along with foreign leaders like Tony Blair) was a shared commitment to globalization. It shouldn’t be surprising that the Bushes voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. When you really think about, it shouldn’t be surprising that Dennis Kucinich’s sister voted for Donald Trump.

    I see HW Bush as a tremendously significant figure because he’s the father of the current world order. I think that’s one reason why so many political and media figures have been so effusive in praising him. This is HW Bush’s world, the rest of us are just living in it. Regardless of how you feel about him and his impact, it’s hard to deny that he was a giant among men.

    With that said, I think there will come a point when the current social order breaks down. Mostly due to a combination of unsustainable debt accumulation, military overstretch, and financial implosion. At that point, the US-Anglo-Euro empire will be forced to abandon the mantle of global leadership. The world will then transition from a unipolar Western-dominated order to a more of a multipolar order. In that new order, China will be the preeminent nation.

    I would guess that we’re likely 10-15 years away from a full transition in the global social order, but it’s already beginning to slowly happen. The global ruling class think they can somehow neutralize Trump and other extremists (both on the far-right and far-left), then go back to business as usual. However, in reality, that’s not going to happen. Trump’s 2016 election is not just a momentary backlash, it represents the beginning of the end.

    Trump is to the current order what Gorbachev’s Perestroika was to the pre-globalization Cold War order. He is a harbinger of what is to come.

    I recall reading that when HW Bush was advising his son during the 2016 primary, he remarked that he couldn’t understand America anymore. The country had changed in ways that there were beyond him to understand.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    I see HW Bush as a tremendously significant figure because he’s the father of the current world order.
     
    Or rather figurehead. All of his successors and the establishment and deep state eagerly followed in his footsteps. I find it hard to believe it’s only because of his enormous impact.
    , @Redneck farmer
    Read Walter Russell Meade's "God and Gold". He points out that the "New World Order" is a pretty old idea, held by people who ought to know it won't work in the end.
    , @ic1000

    My impression was that HW Bush saw the end of the Cold War as an opportunity to transition into a new era. An era in which the nations of the world could be linked together through trade, investment, migration, technology, and political-economic unions. He attempted to be a “big picture” architect of that new era.
     
    Gold Box comment, a summary that dovetails well with Steve’s opening observations on Bush’s life-long connections with Mexico.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Here's my impression, and I was THERE: Mr. Bush came along after a long struggle back from the malaise days of Jimmy Carter. Don't get me wrong, Johnny, in that I agree with your assessment of President Carter from your comments a few days's back* (coincidentally, as I've written, just some hours before I'd read Steve's post about GHW Bush kicking it). In foreign policy, as the Cold War was not quite as HOT as Vietnam days, but still in going on in full swing, President Carter made America look, and actually be, ineffectual.

    It took those 2 Reagan terms, along with the continuing efforts of millions of American soldier, sailors, airmen, engineers, and technicians to end the Cold War. If you didn't live during that time, you may not know that it was THE foreign policy issue of those 4 decades. The 1980's came toward an end with the Cold War won** and at that point America was left as not only by far the biggest military power, but still the economic powerhouse of the world by far. This was before the NAFTA sucking sound, and way before most of other American manufacturing was outsourced to China.

    What did Mr. Bush do with the big peace dividend, in terms of both goodwill and (theoretically) extra money that did not need to be used to defend the entire 1st world anymore? He blew it all to hell with this New World Order crap. It's not like I heard that term but the one time, and I was paying attention to politics then too. Was it orders from the Deep State? I mean, Johnny, that no self-respecting American would have though "New World Order" was anything good for the U.S. of A.

    Granted, Americans WERE gung-ho about the Gulf War (I), but that was just because it was a chance to see the great firepower that had not been used against Soviets (thankfully), and it was such a wipe-out that hardly anyone knew an American killed there. Lastly, it made people feel very good about the future where the "good guys" had the upper hand everywhere. We didn't know the good guys were supposed to continue waging war all around the world .. not the plan, far as I knew.

    Gotta go for now, but I'll write more in a bit. I'd love to have a Reagan thread sometime to explain a few things too. I doubt I'd see eye-to-eye on most of the commenters about the great man. Bush was no great man.


    * BTW, beyond your assessment, I think Mr. Carter was arguably the most honest and humble man in that office since the days of Hoover or Coolidge (though, I don't know enough about Ike).

    ** Or, should I say "Cold War One", as during those same decades and since, the internal infiltration of the Commie/ctrl-left through all the American institutions could be considered the 2nd, internal war. It was not fought at all by our side (the professors, teachers, media people, and government officials - most caved like the cowards they are).

    , @utu
    I see HW Bush as a tremendously significant figure because he’s the father of the current world order.

    Quite the opposite. Here is my reading on G.H.W. Bush

    (1) Bush really believed that the end of Cold War would lead to disarmament. Remember the peace dividends and military bases closing?

    (2) Saddam Hussein is given green light to invade Kuwait under shady circumstances. Bush is arm twisted by Margaret Thatcher to go to war against Saddam Hussein. The war gives Bush the highest ever approval rating (90%) of any president.

    (3) Bush is pissed off with Israel that the US had to pay $600 millions to Israel just so Israel would not interfere in Iraq conflict and screw up the broad Arab coalition that Bush succeeded to organize.

    (4) Using his political capital after the war Bush wants to assert himself against Israel and Yitzhak Shamir by attaching conditions to funding for new settlements. No other president stood up to Israel like that since JFK. He wants to take a tough stand at Madrid Middle East peace conference. Allegation are made by Victor Ostrovsky that Mossad was considering assassinating Bush. Bush lost this battle because he had no guts to level with American people what was the issue about. This critical event went under the radar for most of Americans.

    http://ariwatch.com/OurAlly/FoiledAssassinationOfPresident.htm

    (5) Bush is deemed untrustworthy by the Lobby and a big risk to Israel as a second term president. Anti Bush campaign begins in NYT with weekly columns of Friedman and Safire. Bad economy meme is created.

    (6). Useful idiot Ross Perot enters the race. The exact repeat of play from 1912 election when the incumbent Taft was denied reelection by the third party run of Teddy Roosevelt to elect Wilson. Clinton is elected and just like Wilson does everything Wall Street wants. Clinton deregulates banking and sets the course for the neoliberal globalization.
  8. Pro tip: the elder Bush will be more or less a footnote — in 1988 he fell into the role of Republican nominee after 8 years as VP — and won against one of the weakest Democratic candidates of the 20th century — Reagan will always be given credit (rightly or wrongly) for deep-freezing the Cold War — speaking of “tumultuous”, Bush will be mostly remembered for the first Gulf War (think incubators) — and speaking (again) of the 1990 immigration law: it probably will have contributed significantly to moving forward the date when it will be, for all practical purposes, nearly impossible for a Republican to be elected President.

    Nice going.

    • Replies: @Jack D

    and won against one of the weakest Democratic candidates of the 20th century
     
    This is 20/20 hindsight. In the spring of '88 Dukakis was ahead in the polls by something like 15 points. No VP had succeeded a President by election (as opposed to death or resignation) since van Buren in 1836. Bush ran a very effective campaign and was able to portray Dukakis as a soft on crime, soft on defense, liberal.
  9. @JohnnyWalker123

    My impression is that Bush didn’t come to the Oval Office with too many long range plans, but instead simply had a lot of confidence in his ability to manage in whatever circumstances came up.

     

    My impression was that HW Bush (as a card-carrying member of the old establishment) saw the end of the Cold War as an opportunity to transition into a new era. An era in which the nations of the world could be linked together through trade, investment, migration, technology, and political-economic unions (such as NAFTA and NATO). He attempted to be a "big picture" architect of that new era.

    In that era, financiers, business interests, entrepreneurs, and technocrats would profit under a global Pax Americana. As third world economies grew, workers in the world's less developed regions would increase their purchasing power and create new markets. If threats arose to the order, those threats could be neutralized through broad military alliances (like the Gulf War coalition).

    At this point, it's been around 25-30 years since this "New World Order" came into being. For better and for worse, this era of globalization was initiated by HW Bush, with subsequent presidents (Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama) carrying on his legacy. You could say that other foreign leaders, especially from the Anglo-Euro zone, have been extremely supportive. For example, John Major and Tony Blair helped transition the UK (and even other parts of the Anglo-Euro zone) into the age of globalization.

    One reason that Donald Trump is viewed so negatively by the global establishment is because he's an affront to globalization. He threatens an order under which many influential people have become politically and economically enriched. The same can be said for other far-right figures (Le Pen of France, Farage of the UK, , Salvini of Italy, etc). The same can even be said of Russia and China, with both regimes being nationalist-authoritarian "renegades" who refuse to bend their knee to US-Anglo-Euro order.

    Interestingly, the far-left is also viewed as an affront to globalization. While the far-left isn't viewed with the same intensity of negativity, far-left individuals and organizations tend to be dismissed as being "fringe" or "extremist." Just look at how anti-globalization protesters are portrayed anytime there's a trade summit.

    There's often a strange convergence between the far-left and far-right. Back in the 2000 election, both Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan sounded remarkably similar. In 2016, there were more than a few times when Donald Trump spoke like Bernie Sanders. In 2017, Brexit enjoyed support from both the British far-right and the far-left. While the far-right and far-left differ in their racial and cultural attitudes, there's a shared revulsion towards financiers, oligarchs, military interventionism, and globalist institutions.

    HW Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama had their differences. What brought them together (along with foreign leaders like Tony Blair) was a shared commitment to globalization. It shouldn't be surprising that the Bushes voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. When you really think about, it shouldn't be surprising that Dennis Kucinich's sister voted for Donald Trump.

    I see HW Bush as a tremendously significant figure because he's the father of the current world order. I think that's one reason why so many political and media figures have been so effusive in praising him. This is HW Bush's world, the rest of us are just living in it. Regardless of how you feel about him and his impact, it's hard to deny that he was a giant among men.

    With that said, I think there will come a point when the current social order breaks down. Mostly due to a combination of unsustainable debt accumulation, military overstretch, and financial implosion. At that point, the US-Anglo-Euro empire will be forced to abandon the mantle of global leadership. The world will then transition from a unipolar Western-dominated order to a more of a multipolar order. In that new order, China will be the preeminent nation.

    I would guess that we're likely 10-15 years away from a full transition in the global social order, but it's already beginning to slowly happen. The global ruling class think they can somehow neutralize Trump and other extremists (both on the far-right and far-left), then go back to business as usual. However, in reality, that's not going to happen. Trump's 2016 election is not just a momentary backlash, it represents the beginning of the end.

    Trump is to the current order what Gorbachev's Perestroika was to the pre-globalization Cold War order. He is a harbinger of what is to come.

    I recall reading that when HW Bush was advising his son during the 2016 primary, he remarked that he couldn't understand America anymore. The country had changed in ways that there were beyond him to understand.

    I see HW Bush as a tremendously significant figure because he’s the father of the current world order.

    Or rather figurehead. All of his successors and the establishment and deep state eagerly followed in his footsteps. I find it hard to believe it’s only because of his enormous impact.

  10. It is the most perplexing and disappointing aspect of the entire Bush political family. Despite supposed bona fide Texan’s their tendency to support illegal immigrants was hard to fathom. But after taking stock of Texas politics, they have forever been favorable to Mexicans rather than their own citizens.

    It’s an odd contradiction. And given the last election, Texas appears to be getting worse.

    Every president seems to think, they are going to pass this one time thing . . . so multiple presidents pass a one time policy regarding immigration.

    We have had more than five one time tings regarding illegals. it’s as if n o president has taken a brief review of the issue other one time passes. Build the wall already and stop whining.

    • Replies: @dvorak

    Despite supposed bona fide Texan’s their tendency to support illegal immigrants was hard to fathom.
     
    "They're illegals, but they're our illegals." Texans across the political spectrum have been soft on immigration until very recently with Gov. Abbott & Trump.
    , @MarkinLA
    I read somewhere on Vdare that when GHWB was wooing Salinas on NAFTA the issue of subsistence farmers in Mexico being driven off the land came up and GHWB gave tacit approval that we would look the other way when they came up here.
  11. @JohnnyWalker123

    My impression is that Bush didn’t come to the Oval Office with too many long range plans, but instead simply had a lot of confidence in his ability to manage in whatever circumstances came up.

     

    My impression was that HW Bush (as a card-carrying member of the old establishment) saw the end of the Cold War as an opportunity to transition into a new era. An era in which the nations of the world could be linked together through trade, investment, migration, technology, and political-economic unions (such as NAFTA and NATO). He attempted to be a "big picture" architect of that new era.

    In that era, financiers, business interests, entrepreneurs, and technocrats would profit under a global Pax Americana. As third world economies grew, workers in the world's less developed regions would increase their purchasing power and create new markets. If threats arose to the order, those threats could be neutralized through broad military alliances (like the Gulf War coalition).

    At this point, it's been around 25-30 years since this "New World Order" came into being. For better and for worse, this era of globalization was initiated by HW Bush, with subsequent presidents (Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama) carrying on his legacy. You could say that other foreign leaders, especially from the Anglo-Euro zone, have been extremely supportive. For example, John Major and Tony Blair helped transition the UK (and even other parts of the Anglo-Euro zone) into the age of globalization.

    One reason that Donald Trump is viewed so negatively by the global establishment is because he's an affront to globalization. He threatens an order under which many influential people have become politically and economically enriched. The same can be said for other far-right figures (Le Pen of France, Farage of the UK, , Salvini of Italy, etc). The same can even be said of Russia and China, with both regimes being nationalist-authoritarian "renegades" who refuse to bend their knee to US-Anglo-Euro order.

    Interestingly, the far-left is also viewed as an affront to globalization. While the far-left isn't viewed with the same intensity of negativity, far-left individuals and organizations tend to be dismissed as being "fringe" or "extremist." Just look at how anti-globalization protesters are portrayed anytime there's a trade summit.

    There's often a strange convergence between the far-left and far-right. Back in the 2000 election, both Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan sounded remarkably similar. In 2016, there were more than a few times when Donald Trump spoke like Bernie Sanders. In 2017, Brexit enjoyed support from both the British far-right and the far-left. While the far-right and far-left differ in their racial and cultural attitudes, there's a shared revulsion towards financiers, oligarchs, military interventionism, and globalist institutions.

    HW Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama had their differences. What brought them together (along with foreign leaders like Tony Blair) was a shared commitment to globalization. It shouldn't be surprising that the Bushes voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. When you really think about, it shouldn't be surprising that Dennis Kucinich's sister voted for Donald Trump.

    I see HW Bush as a tremendously significant figure because he's the father of the current world order. I think that's one reason why so many political and media figures have been so effusive in praising him. This is HW Bush's world, the rest of us are just living in it. Regardless of how you feel about him and his impact, it's hard to deny that he was a giant among men.

    With that said, I think there will come a point when the current social order breaks down. Mostly due to a combination of unsustainable debt accumulation, military overstretch, and financial implosion. At that point, the US-Anglo-Euro empire will be forced to abandon the mantle of global leadership. The world will then transition from a unipolar Western-dominated order to a more of a multipolar order. In that new order, China will be the preeminent nation.

    I would guess that we're likely 10-15 years away from a full transition in the global social order, but it's already beginning to slowly happen. The global ruling class think they can somehow neutralize Trump and other extremists (both on the far-right and far-left), then go back to business as usual. However, in reality, that's not going to happen. Trump's 2016 election is not just a momentary backlash, it represents the beginning of the end.

    Trump is to the current order what Gorbachev's Perestroika was to the pre-globalization Cold War order. He is a harbinger of what is to come.

    I recall reading that when HW Bush was advising his son during the 2016 primary, he remarked that he couldn't understand America anymore. The country had changed in ways that there were beyond him to understand.

    Read Walter Russell Meade’s “God and Gold”. He points out that the “New World Order” is a pretty old idea, held by people who ought to know it won’t work in the end.

  12. @Digital Samizdat
    George H. W. 'Poppy' Bush was a very mixed bag. On the one hand, he was a card-carrying Rockefeller globalist; but on the other hand, he was competent enough at it that, compared with what followed, he came off like statesman of the first order. For example, he was enough of a globalist to take us to war in Iraq, thereby installing the very first US bases in the ME. But he was still enough of a realist to avoiding actually invading the country, which infuriated the neocons. (And then, for good measure, he actually insisted on suspending loan guarantees to Israel until they temporarily halted illegal settlement construction on the West Bank--that really PO'd the neocon crowd!)

    And indeed he enjoyed a number of successes, such as getting Gorbachev to take merely an oral assurance that NATO would not expand eastward rather than demand it in writing. But that was winging it.
     
    I always found this a strange talking point. Is a US president's word worth nothing anymore? And if you can't trust his verbal promise, what makes you think you can trust his written promise either? After all, didn't Baby Bush later renege on the ABM treaty? That was in writing. Was it just another 'Injun treaty'?

    The Cuban crisis was resolved by an oral agreement. The Russians would remove the nukes from Cuba, while the Americans would remove the same from Turkey. The US also promised never to invade Cuba. Interestingly, they didn’t invade Cuba even after the USSR fell.

    The Soviets/Russians had every reason to believe that the word of an American president was worth a lot.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian

    Interestingly, they didn’t invade Cuba even after the USSR fell.
     
    We had 20 or 30K wounded and what, 6 or 8 KIA at Iwo Jima? It's ten or twelve miles long. Cuba has to be pushing a thousand. My Pop was sunk aboard USS Bismark Sea of Iwo Jima. Retired, but still Navy Department, he was troubled throughout his life that we could invade Cuba. And it would have been as useless to us as was Iwo Jima. Maybe Iwo Jima was a useful lesson.
    , @Mr. Anon

    The Cuban crisis was resolved by an oral agreement. The Russians would remove the nukes from Cuba, while the Americans would remove the same from Turkey. The US also promised never to invade Cuba. Interestingly, they didn’t invade Cuba even after the USSR fell.

    The Soviets/Russians had every reason to believe that the word of an American president was worth a lot.
     

    That's a good point. Of course, an American government that has "won" the cold war, considers itself the only remaining superpower in a unipolar world, and is drunk on its own power, proved to be a different entity altogether.
    , @songbird
    The powers that be used to have a genuine fear of too many illegal aliens coming at once. This was especially true of island nations in the Caribbean like Cuba, Haiti and the DR, which would send flotillas, which were kind of like the early caravans. Plenty of imagery to alarm people and bring the immigration debate to the fore.

    Sometimes the US intervened in order to prevent too big an exodus. The motivation was obvious because that the threat which was implicitly made to them. Of course, it did not prevent them from accepting too many already in a kind of corrupt, two-faced way.
  13. Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky once proposed a very interesting idea to Putin.

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/our-american-pravda/

    Consider the fascinating perspective of the recently deceased Boris Berezovsky, once the most powerful of the Russian oligarchs and the puppet master behind President Boris Yeltsin during the late 1990s. After looting billions in national wealth and elevating Vladimir Putin to the presidency, he overreached himself and eventually went into exile. According to the New York Times, he had planned to transform Russia into a fake two-party state—one social-democratic and one neoconservative—in which heated public battles would be fought on divisive, symbolic issues, while behind the scenes both parties would actually be controlled by the same ruling elites. With the citizenry thus permanently divided and popular dissatisfaction safely channeled into meaningless dead-ends, Russia’s rulers could maintain unlimited wealth and power for themselves, with little threat to their reign.

    A fake two-party system in which both parties are run by the same people. While both parties alternative in and out of power, the ruling class loots the country. Rather than hate the ruling class, the people hate other people from the opposing party.

    I wonder where he got this idea from.

    I wonder who originally proposed the creation of such a system.

    I wonder what HW Bush would’ve thought of this system.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian

    I wonder what HW Bush would’ve thought of this system.
     
    Well, it is a system sending him off in style. Both sides loved him, it turns out. Who knew this Democrat love for HW thirty years back?
  14. THE FIRE RISES
    The French “yellow jacket” protests (which the press tells you are about one gas surtax, but which are really a general protest about many EU problems including immigration) have spread to a certain belligerent yet masochistic neighbor.
    https://twitter.com/DoraGezwitscher/status/1068953284013109248
    Calling for the resignations of Macron and Merkel. The yellow jackets are part of the safety kits French drivers must keep in their cars so everybody pretty much already has one, part of how it was able to spread so fast.

  15. @Digital Samizdat
    George H. W. 'Poppy' Bush was a very mixed bag. On the one hand, he was a card-carrying Rockefeller globalist; but on the other hand, he was competent enough at it that, compared with what followed, he came off like statesman of the first order. For example, he was enough of a globalist to take us to war in Iraq, thereby installing the very first US bases in the ME. But he was still enough of a realist to avoiding actually invading the country, which infuriated the neocons. (And then, for good measure, he actually insisted on suspending loan guarantees to Israel until they temporarily halted illegal settlement construction on the West Bank--that really PO'd the neocon crowd!)

    And indeed he enjoyed a number of successes, such as getting Gorbachev to take merely an oral assurance that NATO would not expand eastward rather than demand it in writing. But that was winging it.
     
    I always found this a strange talking point. Is a US president's word worth nothing anymore? And if you can't trust his verbal promise, what makes you think you can trust his written promise either? After all, didn't Baby Bush later renege on the ABM treaty? That was in writing. Was it just another 'Injun treaty'?

    he actually insisted on suspending loan guarantees to Israel until they temporarily halted illegal settlement construction on the West Bank

    As a result, he enjoyed the undying enmity of the ‘Israel First’ crowd in the USA (which of course includes the major media) and their partisans swore he would never be re-elected. Guess who won that one?

    Even if Poppy were everything his fans say, it’s still true that he perpetrated W and that’s enough to ruin anyone’s reputation forever.

    • Replies: @Abe

    Even if Poppy were everything his fans say, it’s still true that he perpetrated W and that’s enough to ruin anyone’s reputation forever.
     
    Shruber the Lame was directly responsible for bringing more pointless misery and destruction to the world than any other US President- by far. He was the worst thing that’s happened to the Middle East since the Mongols. My contempt for him is only exceeded by my contempt for the media, who after fashioning him into the second coming of Hitler, has with complete shamelessness seen fit to start a soft focus PR campaign to rehabilitate him.
  16. Anon[276] • Disclaimer says:

    OT

    I was delighted to see that Neil deGrasse Tyson had been #metoo’d. Blackies be blackin’ and all. He seems like the ultimate affirmative action black guy.

    But his Facebook post completely convinced me that he is innocent.

    Posted by Neil deGrasse Tyson on Saturday, December 1, 2018

    Normally I would recommend that people accused not comment and ignore the accusations. Or else say nothing and file a lawsuit without comment and prosecute it to the end. You can’t win a guerrilla war against Twitter mobs.

    But Tyson’s Facebook post is rather well done.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    He's a good writer.

    One iSteve commenter was one of 3 grad students with Neil deGrasse Tyson. The third grad student was an inept TA and lost every single one of her students over the semester. Our commenter was proud that he wound up with 40% of her students in competition with NdGT.

    , @Almost Missouri
    It IS rather well done.

    Amusingly, the dumbass facebook commenters in hosanna mode below Tyson's post missed why his post was so good. They falsely declare it to be "a simple straightforward apology" when it is really the opposite: a smooth reframing of the accusations as being absurd and opportunistic, couched as a philosophical essay "On Being Accused", while he publicly reverse engineers the accusations.

    Smooth operator indeed.

    https://youtu.be/4TYv2PhG89A?t=73

    , @Fred Boynton
    VoxDay has a good, interesting, non-boomer take on this here.

    But his Facebook post completely convinced me that he is innocent.

    His facebook post is completely convincing that he's a creepy boomer weirdo trying to hit on and bed his underlings while still maintaining plausible deniability for his creepy weirdo fanbois.
  17. Anonymous[172] • Disclaimer says:

    GHW rather than having any innate talent, insight or ability had the pure blind luck of the gambler in that he was matched, at the critical juncture, with such a uniquely useless and incompetent opponent as Gorbachev, surely not only the ‘biggest fool in Christendom’ but the Biggest Fool this side of Creation. The cosmic joker made flesh.

    The Deep State behind GHW knew full well they were dealing with a damned incompetent low IQ fool – and an insufferably vain, shallow and pompous one to boot. They couldn’ believe their luck. Like hard seasoned poker players around a Vegas table who cannot believe their lucky stars that a very very rich and very very stupid and arrogant fool is at the table, the sharpers of the State Department fleeced the cretin for all he was worth – and then some!

    Such opportunities are few and far between, perhaps happening once in a Sharper’s lifetime. And Boy! How does a sharper know how to fleece a Booby! The words ‘merciless’, ‘no pity’ and ‘shark-like’ bear absolutely no justice to a sharper with the scent of Booby in his nose. And thus the sharpers cleaned up. Gorbachev was the Emperor left literally naked. No Party, no nation, no ‘presidency’ merely diabolical chaos plus starvation and epic looting in its wake. Not even a cloth to hide the pompous impotent potentate bollocks.

    And of course, the sharpers were laughing all the way to the bank. The winners, as the saying goes, takes all. No boo hoo hoping about those ‘nasty men’ from Gorb the Liar to the Small Claims Court. Tough titty, you stupid fool, say the sharpers plunged (perhaps metaphorically) balls deep in the porntress of their choice. Such is the way of the world, the Nietzschean law of the strong.

    And what was it about the life cycle of parasitoid wasps – one of nature’s most successful, ancient and abundant genera, which so shook the faith and confidence of Charles Darwin? Surely no sentimentalist he.

    • Replies: @bomag
    In fairness to Gorbachev, he came to the table with a lousy hand; the rot was through the bone in his country; kind of like getting the controls of a train just before it plunges off the cliff.
  18. Punk rock and industrial fans of a certain age will recall with warm nostalgia the days when the likes of Jello Biafra and Ministry traveled far and wide telling all who would hear that G.H.W. Bush and his New World Order were fascism incarnate.

    It’s really true, every Republican president is Hitler and makes the previous Republican president look like a cupcake.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I thought Ministry was more based, with their NWO stuff. I didn’t really read any of their interviews. But recently I read Al Jourgensen thinking Trump to be literally Hitler, and that he supported BLM.
  19. @EliteCommInc.
    It is the most perplexing and disappointing aspect of the entire Bush political family. Despite supposed bona fide Texan's their tendency to support illegal immigrants was hard to fathom. But after taking stock of Texas politics, they have forever been favorable to Mexicans rather than their own citizens.

    It's an odd contradiction. And given the last election, Texas appears to be getting worse.


    Every president seems to think, they are going to pass this one time thing . . . so multiple presidents pass a one time policy regarding immigration.

    We have had more than five one time tings regarding illegals. it's as if n o president has taken a brief review of the issue other one time passes. Build the wall already and stop whining.

    Despite supposed bona fide Texan’s their tendency to support illegal immigrants was hard to fathom.

    “They’re illegals, but they’re our illegals.” Texans across the political spectrum have been soft on immigration until very recently with Gov. Abbott & Trump.

    • Replies: @South Texas Guy
    Until "recently" Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal, had not pervaded every single corner of the state. Mexicans in deep east Texas, was not a thing or outside of of Dallas, not a North Texas thing, or even really a central Texas thing. Coming down on 'poor immigrants seeking a better future' in these areas would play the same as with white folks in Maine. Unless you have to deal with it, it's purely an abstract concept.

    I went to college a few hundred miles from home, but still in Texas, and one of the big reasons was to be around more white people (women - Mexican women do better in keeping up with their body after age 20 than they did back then). Pluses and minuses on that front, but that college town is nowhere near like it was 20 years ago.
  20. I liked whe the George Bush people put out stuff how Bush was a big fan of Country music and loved snacking on fried pork rinds. Ever seen being fried pork rinds being made at home? I had a neighbor who did this. They are deep fried in lard.

    “Chicharrones – Bacon’s Heir”

    • Replies: @Simply Simon
    I apologize for abusing this thread but I had to comment about fried pork rinds which are called "cracklings" where I come from. My neighbor was a butcher, primarily hogs, and he placed all the pork trimmings mainly fat into a large wood-fired iron kettle in which the trimmings would be fully cooked and rendered into lard. After most of the fat was cooked out the leavings were ladled into a compressor of sort and the remaining fat squeezed out leaving the rinds which we neighbor kids eagerly devoured. The liquid would in turn be ladled into five gallon cans and after cooling would turn into solid white lard. which in parts of the country is still used for shortening..
  21. @Anon
    OT

    I was delighted to see that Neil deGrasse Tyson had been #metoo'd. Blackies be blackin' and all. He seems like the ultimate affirmative action black guy.

    But his Facebook post completely convinced me that he is innocent.

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/on-being-accused/10156870826326613/

    Normally I would recommend that people accused not comment and ignore the accusations. Or else say nothing and file a lawsuit without comment and prosecute it to the end. You can't win a guerrilla war against Twitter mobs.

    But Tyson's Facebook post is rather well done.

    He’s a good writer.

    One iSteve commenter was one of 3 grad students with Neil deGrasse Tyson. The third grad student was an inept TA and lost every single one of her students over the semester. Our commenter was proud that he wound up with 40% of her students in competition with NdGT.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    Neil was--i assume still is--a very friendly and personable guy. Fine/pleasant colleague to share the TA duties with. (And he was also a well built and handsome guy so was doing well with the ladies back in the day.)

    Neil's not a great intellect or great scientist. But hey, most of us didn't end up making science hay either. As i told everyone when suddenly Neil popped up as the black Carl Sagan--i.e. science PR flack--"perfect meeting of man and career".

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/on-being-accused/10156870826326613/

    This was a well written, pretty convincing defense. From the tone of it, i'd guess Neil has *not* been a Bill Clinton style hound, and there are no credible allegations "out there" that are going to come out and torpedo him. What's there is typical female attention seeking behavior--which has been unleashed in spades by #MeToo.

    (Aside: AnotherMom does not remember this Tchiya Amet. So she was in and out of the astronomy department pretty quickly--as Neil indicates.)
  22. @Song For the Deaf
    Punk rock and industrial fans of a certain age will recall with warm nostalgia the days when the likes of Jello Biafra and Ministry traveled far and wide telling all who would hear that G.H.W. Bush and his New World Order were fascism incarnate.

    It’s really true, every Republican president is Hitler and makes the previous Republican president look like a cupcake.

    I thought Ministry was more based, with their NWO stuff. I didn’t really read any of their interviews. But recently I read Al Jourgensen thinking Trump to be literally Hitler, and that he supported BLM.

    • Replies: @Song For the Deaf
    Check out their video for NWO, with the cheesy Bush impersonator.

    Back when I was really young, say about 14, and didn’t know or care about politics, let alone identifying as a conservative, I looked at all these youth subcultures like punk, goth and industrial and I thought they must have some bizarre, freakish worldview because their clothes and sound were so weird. I assumed since Johnny Rotten said he despised the hippies and everything they stood for that these bands would have something crazier and more interesting to say than “peace and love.”

    Boy, was I in for a letdown. They’re all hippies in drag.

  23. @dvorak

    Despite supposed bona fide Texan’s their tendency to support illegal immigrants was hard to fathom.
     
    "They're illegals, but they're our illegals." Texans across the political spectrum have been soft on immigration until very recently with Gov. Abbott & Trump.

    Until “recently” Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal, had not pervaded every single corner of the state. Mexicans in deep east Texas, was not a thing or outside of of Dallas, not a North Texas thing, or even really a central Texas thing. Coming down on ‘poor immigrants seeking a better future’ in these areas would play the same as with white folks in Maine. Unless you have to deal with it, it’s purely an abstract concept.

    I went to college a few hundred miles from home, but still in Texas, and one of the big reasons was to be around more white people (women – Mexican women do better in keeping up with their body after age 20 than they did back then). Pluses and minuses on that front, but that college town is nowhere near like it was 20 years ago.

  24. OT

    Google deranks Sputnik and RT

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/21/google-de-rank-russia-today-sputnik-combat-misinformation-alphabet-chief-executive-eric-schmidt

    “Two years ago, Cascina suddenly turned its back on seven decades of (leftwing/Communist) tradition and voted for a very different kind of politician. Susanna Ceccardi, the town’s 31-year-old mayor, is a rising star of the rightwing League party. For years an also-ran of Italian politics, the League is about to chalk up six months in coalition government following elections that routed traditional centre-ground parties and handed populists a landmark victory.

    Matteo Salvini, the deputy prime minister and leader of the League, has just made Ceccardi one of his chief advisers on security. Charismatic, confrontational and usually dressed in a leather jacket and jeans, Ceccardi is also the new party boss in Tuscany, where a Trumpian “Italians first” message is conquering great swathes of political territory. Pisa, Massa and Siena – traditional bastions of the left – all fell to centre-right and League candidates in local elections in the summer. Florence is the next target.

    “My grandparents were all communists,” she says, sitting in her mayoral office. “

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/01/italians-first-matteo-salvini-the-league-rise-rightwing-populism

    Now a country putting its people before strangers or incomers seems perfectly sane to me, but apparently that’s what the Guardian’s against.

  25. @Anon
    LA riots made him look weak, especially after tough guy act of Gulf War.

    His son also acted tough abroad but was looked esp weak with Katrina and Negroes.

    Last Republican to win California.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/ElectoralCollege1988.svg/1200px-ElectoralCollege1988.svg.png

    Trump will be last one to win Texas and Florida.

    Tragedy of American Conservatism is white conservatives do most to defend and defer to Jews who do most to demean and destroy white conservatives.

    “LA riots made him look weak, especially after tough guy act of Gulf War.

    His son also acted tough abroad but was looked esp weak with Katrina and Negroes.”

    By design, the US Presidency was supposed to have the character of a monarch abroad to contend with foreign powers, but be weak and limited at home to prevent tyranny. Whatever else their faults, the Bushes–consciously or not–still subscribed to this maxim: strength abroad, deference at home.

    Obama, the Clintons, other Dem candidates have reversed the formula for the Executive: weak against foreigners, powerful against the natives. As one might expect from those who view the natives as hostile aliens and view foreigners as incipient allies.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    By design, the US Presidency was supposed to have the character of a monarch abroad to contend with foreign powers, but be weak and limited at home to prevent tyranny. Whatever else their faults, the Bushes–consciously or not–still subscribed to this maxim: strength abroad, deference at home.
     
    A fine trait when your domestic rivals share your manners, values, and goals for the country as a common project (or, dare I say it, shared patrimony). Terrible when you have domestic opponents who are eliminationists.

    One of Bush 41’s great sins was alienating conservatives with his fecklessness and dishonesty and then unleashing the Clintons upon the country at large, with the consequent coarsening of national politics.

    He inherited “morning in America again” from Reagan and left the country with Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama (and some would say Trump). That’s his legacy.
  26. @Anon
    OT

    I was delighted to see that Neil deGrasse Tyson had been #metoo'd. Blackies be blackin' and all. He seems like the ultimate affirmative action black guy.

    But his Facebook post completely convinced me that he is innocent.

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/on-being-accused/10156870826326613/

    Normally I would recommend that people accused not comment and ignore the accusations. Or else say nothing and file a lawsuit without comment and prosecute it to the end. You can't win a guerrilla war against Twitter mobs.

    But Tyson's Facebook post is rather well done.

    It IS rather well done.

    Amusingly, the dumbass facebook commenters in hosanna mode below Tyson’s post missed why his post was so good. They falsely declare it to be “a simple straightforward apology” when it is really the opposite: a smooth reframing of the accusations as being absurd and opportunistic, couched as a philosophical essay “On Being Accused”, while he publicly reverse engineers the accusations.

    Smooth operator indeed.

    • Replies: @Abe

    Amusingly, the dumbass facebook commenters in hosanna mode below Tyson’s post missed why his post was so good... a smooth reframing of the accusations as being absurd and opportunistic, couched as a philosophical essay “On Being Accused”,
     
    Ah, yes. Let the Negro resell you your own Enlightenment and Rationalism (innocent until proven guilty; due process) on Sundays at 100% markup. “Believe the woman” the rest of the week. This is America.
  27. @Digital Samizdat
    George H. W. 'Poppy' Bush was a very mixed bag. On the one hand, he was a card-carrying Rockefeller globalist; but on the other hand, he was competent enough at it that, compared with what followed, he came off like statesman of the first order. For example, he was enough of a globalist to take us to war in Iraq, thereby installing the very first US bases in the ME. But he was still enough of a realist to avoiding actually invading the country, which infuriated the neocons. (And then, for good measure, he actually insisted on suspending loan guarantees to Israel until they temporarily halted illegal settlement construction on the West Bank--that really PO'd the neocon crowd!)

    And indeed he enjoyed a number of successes, such as getting Gorbachev to take merely an oral assurance that NATO would not expand eastward rather than demand it in writing. But that was winging it.
     
    I always found this a strange talking point. Is a US president's word worth nothing anymore? And if you can't trust his verbal promise, what makes you think you can trust his written promise either? After all, didn't Baby Bush later renege on the ABM treaty? That was in writing. Was it just another 'Injun treaty'?

    The US left the ABM treaty under provisions written into the terms of the treaty.

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
    True. But the point is, they killed the treaty and started a new arms race. It's going be virtually impossible now to negotiate a new such treaty with another counter-party in the future. The most you can expect from Uncle Scam is a temporary cease-fire.
  28. @reiner Tor
    I thought Ministry was more based, with their NWO stuff. I didn’t really read any of their interviews. But recently I read Al Jourgensen thinking Trump to be literally Hitler, and that he supported BLM.

    Check out their video for NWO, with the cheesy Bush impersonator.

    Back when I was really young, say about 14, and didn’t know or care about politics, let alone identifying as a conservative, I looked at all these youth subcultures like punk, goth and industrial and I thought they must have some bizarre, freakish worldview because their clothes and sound were so weird. I assumed since Johnny Rotten said he despised the hippies and everything they stood for that these bands would have something crazier and more interesting to say than “peace and love.”

    Boy, was I in for a letdown. They’re all hippies in drag.

  29. @anonymous
    As the RIP thread resumes, a clarifying question: What is, and how do the people of this country benefit from, a "triumphant era for American foreign policy"?

    Very few on this website bought into the celebration of Senator McCain. But a former President dies, and it's time to hotstove his Risk stats.

    But a former President dies, and it’s time to hotstove his Risk stats.

    What do you mean?

    • Replies: @anonymous
    Comparing the shameful warmongering and other imperial acts during each presidency, as though these rulers of ours were old baseball players.

    hotstove - to pass time during the winter talking baseball

    Risk - a board game of international conflict and conquest
  30. @JohnnyWalker123

    My impression is that Bush didn’t come to the Oval Office with too many long range plans, but instead simply had a lot of confidence in his ability to manage in whatever circumstances came up.

     

    My impression was that HW Bush (as a card-carrying member of the old establishment) saw the end of the Cold War as an opportunity to transition into a new era. An era in which the nations of the world could be linked together through trade, investment, migration, technology, and political-economic unions (such as NAFTA and NATO). He attempted to be a "big picture" architect of that new era.

    In that era, financiers, business interests, entrepreneurs, and technocrats would profit under a global Pax Americana. As third world economies grew, workers in the world's less developed regions would increase their purchasing power and create new markets. If threats arose to the order, those threats could be neutralized through broad military alliances (like the Gulf War coalition).

    At this point, it's been around 25-30 years since this "New World Order" came into being. For better and for worse, this era of globalization was initiated by HW Bush, with subsequent presidents (Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama) carrying on his legacy. You could say that other foreign leaders, especially from the Anglo-Euro zone, have been extremely supportive. For example, John Major and Tony Blair helped transition the UK (and even other parts of the Anglo-Euro zone) into the age of globalization.

    One reason that Donald Trump is viewed so negatively by the global establishment is because he's an affront to globalization. He threatens an order under which many influential people have become politically and economically enriched. The same can be said for other far-right figures (Le Pen of France, Farage of the UK, , Salvini of Italy, etc). The same can even be said of Russia and China, with both regimes being nationalist-authoritarian "renegades" who refuse to bend their knee to US-Anglo-Euro order.

    Interestingly, the far-left is also viewed as an affront to globalization. While the far-left isn't viewed with the same intensity of negativity, far-left individuals and organizations tend to be dismissed as being "fringe" or "extremist." Just look at how anti-globalization protesters are portrayed anytime there's a trade summit.

    There's often a strange convergence between the far-left and far-right. Back in the 2000 election, both Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan sounded remarkably similar. In 2016, there were more than a few times when Donald Trump spoke like Bernie Sanders. In 2017, Brexit enjoyed support from both the British far-right and the far-left. While the far-right and far-left differ in their racial and cultural attitudes, there's a shared revulsion towards financiers, oligarchs, military interventionism, and globalist institutions.

    HW Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama had their differences. What brought them together (along with foreign leaders like Tony Blair) was a shared commitment to globalization. It shouldn't be surprising that the Bushes voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. When you really think about, it shouldn't be surprising that Dennis Kucinich's sister voted for Donald Trump.

    I see HW Bush as a tremendously significant figure because he's the father of the current world order. I think that's one reason why so many political and media figures have been so effusive in praising him. This is HW Bush's world, the rest of us are just living in it. Regardless of how you feel about him and his impact, it's hard to deny that he was a giant among men.

    With that said, I think there will come a point when the current social order breaks down. Mostly due to a combination of unsustainable debt accumulation, military overstretch, and financial implosion. At that point, the US-Anglo-Euro empire will be forced to abandon the mantle of global leadership. The world will then transition from a unipolar Western-dominated order to a more of a multipolar order. In that new order, China will be the preeminent nation.

    I would guess that we're likely 10-15 years away from a full transition in the global social order, but it's already beginning to slowly happen. The global ruling class think they can somehow neutralize Trump and other extremists (both on the far-right and far-left), then go back to business as usual. However, in reality, that's not going to happen. Trump's 2016 election is not just a momentary backlash, it represents the beginning of the end.

    Trump is to the current order what Gorbachev's Perestroika was to the pre-globalization Cold War order. He is a harbinger of what is to come.

    I recall reading that when HW Bush was advising his son during the 2016 primary, he remarked that he couldn't understand America anymore. The country had changed in ways that there were beyond him to understand.

    My impression was that HW Bush saw the end of the Cold War as an opportunity to transition into a new era. An era in which the nations of the world could be linked together through trade, investment, migration, technology, and political-economic unions. He attempted to be a “big picture” architect of that new era.

    Gold Box comment, a summary that dovetails well with Steve’s opening observations on Bush’s life-long connections with Mexico.

  31. @Anon
    LA riots made him look weak, especially after tough guy act of Gulf War.

    His son also acted tough abroad but was looked esp weak with Katrina and Negroes.

    Last Republican to win California.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/ElectoralCollege1988.svg/1200px-ElectoralCollege1988.svg.png

    Trump will be last one to win Texas and Florida.

    Tragedy of American Conservatism is white conservatives do most to defend and defer to Jews who do most to demean and destroy white conservatives.

    The weakness perception in regard to the LA riots was that he buckled after the four cops were found not guilty in state court, and then directed the justice department to bring them up on federal charges.

    Also brings up the point, how come it would be evil for Trump to direct justice dept. to investigate charges against some people, but this got/is swept under the rug?

  32. @reiner Tor
    The Cuban crisis was resolved by an oral agreement. The Russians would remove the nukes from Cuba, while the Americans would remove the same from Turkey. The US also promised never to invade Cuba. Interestingly, they didn’t invade Cuba even after the USSR fell.

    The Soviets/Russians had every reason to believe that the word of an American president was worth a lot.

    Interestingly, they didn’t invade Cuba even after the USSR fell.

    We had 20 or 30K wounded and what, 6 or 8 KIA at Iwo Jima? It’s ten or twelve miles long. Cuba has to be pushing a thousand. My Pop was sunk aboard USS Bismark Sea of Iwo Jima. Retired, but still Navy Department, he was troubled throughout his life that we could invade Cuba. And it would have been as useless to us as was Iwo Jima. Maybe Iwo Jima was a useful lesson.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    What was the strategic or tactical importance of Iwo Jima?
    , @South Texas Guy
    The strategical importance was an airstrip for bombing missions to Japan. Otherwise, nothing. The island was given back to Japan in the 60's or so.
    , @Anonymous
    What was useless about Iwo Jima?

    I don't understand why your father was troubled by Cuba.

  33. @JohnnyWalker123
    Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky once proposed a very interesting idea to Putin.

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/our-american-pravda/

    Consider the fascinating perspective of the recently deceased Boris Berezovsky, once the most powerful of the Russian oligarchs and the puppet master behind President Boris Yeltsin during the late 1990s. After looting billions in national wealth and elevating Vladimir Putin to the presidency, he overreached himself and eventually went into exile. According to the New York Times, he had planned to transform Russia into a fake two-party state—one social-democratic and one neoconservative—in which heated public battles would be fought on divisive, symbolic issues, while behind the scenes both parties would actually be controlled by the same ruling elites. With the citizenry thus permanently divided and popular dissatisfaction safely channeled into meaningless dead-ends, Russia’s rulers could maintain unlimited wealth and power for themselves, with little threat to their reign.

     

    A fake two-party system in which both parties are run by the same people. While both parties alternative in and out of power, the ruling class loots the country. Rather than hate the ruling class, the people hate other people from the opposing party.

    I wonder where he got this idea from.

    I wonder who originally proposed the creation of such a system.

    I wonder what HW Bush would've thought of this system.

    I wonder what HW Bush would’ve thought of this system.

    Well, it is a system sending him off in style. Both sides loved him, it turns out. Who knew this Democrat love for HW thirty years back?

  34. Sailer’s notion that Poppy Bush got Gorbachev to take an oral assurance that Nato would not expand eastward and that this was somehow binding deserves a little attention in that his hindsight is distorting the reality of that particular moment.

    As opposed to presidential backchannel discussions of very real and pressing concerns such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, talking or even thinking about NATO’s future at the Malta summit would be a relatively remote issue.

    Remember this was in early December 1989. The Berlin wall had only come down 3 weeks before! The USSR and the satellites hadn’t begun to unravel yet. Bush couldn’t bind the USA or NATO for eternity to anything anyway. Senate ratification anyone? NATO compliance?

    The real and ongoing issues of NATO expansion took on a life of it’s own after events unfolded on no set time table with unpredictable permutations. Poppy and Gorby were long gone. The neocons had plenty of time to sharpen their pencils by then.

    Poor historiography on Sailer’s part.

    Cheers-

  35. Funny how the old time White Americans up north, who never saw non-Whites, could hold the view that everybody, everywhere, was the same. They just needed the rule of law. Or something.

    • Replies: @Sarah Toga
    ... perhaps the religious Universalism of the Northern Unitarian-Universalists mutated into a sociological/secular/political "universalism". Which further mutated into the egalitarianism of today.

    After all, the UU were quite influential. They produced many professors for many elite colleges.
  36. @reiner Tor
    OT

    Five years ago! The pain is still indescribable.

    Paul William Walker IV (September 12, 1973 – November 30, 2013) was an American actor best known for his role as Brian O'Conner in The Fast and the Furious franchise. Walker first gained prominence in 1999 with roles in the teen films She's All That and Varsity Blues. In 2001, he gained international fame for his role in the street racing action film The Fast and the Furious (2001), a role he reprised in five of the next six installments, but died in 2013 in the middle of filming Furious 7 (2015).

    His legacy lives on! He died a heroic death trying to bring about a better world, and as a result we still enjoy the Paul Walker jokes in the iSteve comment section. It’s an inspiration for us all to constantly improve ourselves and drive wonderful cars.

    Was Paul Walker related to George Herbert Walker Bush?

  37. @reiner Tor
    OT

    Five years ago! The pain is still indescribable.

    Paul William Walker IV (September 12, 1973 – November 30, 2013) was an American actor best known for his role as Brian O'Conner in The Fast and the Furious franchise. Walker first gained prominence in 1999 with roles in the teen films She's All That and Varsity Blues. In 2001, he gained international fame for his role in the street racing action film The Fast and the Furious (2001), a role he reprised in five of the next six installments, but died in 2013 in the middle of filming Furious 7 (2015).

    His legacy lives on! He died a heroic death trying to bring about a better world, and as a result we still enjoy the Paul Walker jokes in the iSteve comment section. It’s an inspiration for us all to constantly improve ourselves and drive wonderful cars.

    did sailer ever write about walker.

  38. @Anon
    LA riots made him look weak, especially after tough guy act of Gulf War.

    His son also acted tough abroad but was looked esp weak with Katrina and Negroes.

    Last Republican to win California.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/ElectoralCollege1988.svg/1200px-ElectoralCollege1988.svg.png

    Trump will be last one to win Texas and Florida.

    Tragedy of American Conservatism is white conservatives do most to defend and defer to Jews who do most to demean and destroy white conservatives.

    Tragedy of American Conservatism is white conservatives do most to defend and defer to Jews who do most to demean and destroy white conservatives.

    Which is one of many, many reasons why I don’t consider myself an American Conservative.

  39. @Busby
    The US left the ABM treaty under provisions written into the terms of the treaty.

    True. But the point is, they killed the treaty and started a new arms race. It’s going be virtually impossible now to negotiate a new such treaty with another counter-party in the future. The most you can expect from Uncle Scam is a temporary cease-fire.

  40. @Digital Samizdat
    George H. W. 'Poppy' Bush was a very mixed bag. On the one hand, he was a card-carrying Rockefeller globalist; but on the other hand, he was competent enough at it that, compared with what followed, he came off like statesman of the first order. For example, he was enough of a globalist to take us to war in Iraq, thereby installing the very first US bases in the ME. But he was still enough of a realist to avoiding actually invading the country, which infuriated the neocons. (And then, for good measure, he actually insisted on suspending loan guarantees to Israel until they temporarily halted illegal settlement construction on the West Bank--that really PO'd the neocon crowd!)

    And indeed he enjoyed a number of successes, such as getting Gorbachev to take merely an oral assurance that NATO would not expand eastward rather than demand it in writing. But that was winging it.
     
    I always found this a strange talking point. Is a US president's word worth nothing anymore? And if you can't trust his verbal promise, what makes you think you can trust his written promise either? After all, didn't Baby Bush later renege on the ABM treaty? That was in writing. Was it just another 'Injun treaty'?

    For example, he was enough of a globalist to take us to war in Iraq, thereby installing the very first US bases in the ME. But he was still enough of a realist to avoiding actually invading the country, which infuriated the neocons.

    I always find this backhanded praise of Bush’s judgement in the first Gulf War bizarre. The failure to oust Saddam was a disaster.

    What was the “message” from the Gulf War? Roughly, if you grab up your neighbor’s territory, the US *may*–if the pres feels like US prestige is on the line–stir himself, assemble a coalition of nations and kick you out … but leave you in power! So, you know, do your calculation carefully, but if the odds look good … go for it!

    Basically the Gulf War was the classic “wounding the bear”. We created an enemy, who we had to police in perpetuity, who was eventually–as other nations got tired of the sanctions regime–going to get his oil money flowing giving him a big wallet and who now was pissed at us, with a big chip on his shoulder. Great work Poppy!

    No. You either don’t do it and take the hit to your prestige with the Gulf Arab oil pumping kleptocrats. Or you do it and make sure you kill or at least oust Saddam. Not “fix Iraq” or “nation build”, but basic crime and punishment: you messed things up and made me us get up and cost the lives of American boys, you pay.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Not “fix Iraq” or “nation build”, but basic crime and punishment: you messed things up and made me us get up and cost the lives of American boys, you pay.
     
    Uh, Saddam and Iraq were made to pay. Dearly.

    Did you see any other Middle Eastern states--other than Israel--attempt to acquire territory by conquest after the first Gulf War?
    , @pyrrhus
    Iraq was indeed the Skull and Bones approach to war...Kill vast numbers of people for no particular reason, then abandon ship for another adventure.
    , @Twinkie
    I agree wholeheartedly. It’s not punishment if you leave someone in power, especially in the Middle East. The tragedy of all this is that an invasion and occupation of Iraq after Desert Storm had a much greater chance of success than what transpired in OIF.

    Our foolhardy intervention and then the ignominious withdrawal from Somalia showed the Iraqis (and others) a much more efficacious method of combating our overwhelmingly powerful firepower.

    In 1991, none of those conditions existed and the Iraqis were overwhelmed and completely awestruck by our military capacity. The Kurds and the Shia were much more friendly and would have been far more compliant to our direction. An American-installed Iraqi leader would have enjoyed a much greater confidence then. Paradoxically, weakening Saddam Hussein in 1991 made Iraq both more unstable and less amenable to subsequent occupation, yet still left him a thorn in our side.

    The great tragedy of all that followed - 9/11, the Iraq debacle, Obama, etc. - was a consequence of Bush 41’s timidity and lack of confidence (which are amply shown in his own writings) after the utter destruction of Saddam’s military capacity and the complete psychological dominance we had gained temporarily. It was our Cannae.
    , @TomSchmidt
    Look at it from the POV of Saddam. That man blew the greatest opportunity of the century: why stop at Kuwait and not continue in to seize Saudi Arabia's oil fields and infrastructure? There was literally nothing to stop him. Having seized the infrastructure, no war to dislodge him could have been launched, since he now had the oil-dependent industrialized West by the cojones. Recall that he did set the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire before restreating. Imagine the loss of Saudi production for a year and what it would have done to the economies of the world.

    April Glaspie essentially told Saddam he could take Kuwait. Then, after he did so, we reneged on the deal. GHWB got authorization from the UN only to remove Saddam from Kuwait. He did so, claiming also to have undone the Vietnam malaise in the process.

    In counterfactual history, Saddam becomes the second-biggest loser after Hitler, who might have ended the war with more daring attacks. Saddam could have controlled all the oil resources of Iraq (and there are a lot, and the lifting costs for the oil are the lowest in the planet), Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, and there would have been nothing we could have done once he did. Instead, he trusted the Bush family, and paid the price.
    , @Digital Samizdat
    The whole war was a set up. TPTB wanted bases in the Persian Gulf (mostly to check Iran), but putting 'swine-eating infidels' in countries like Saudi Arabia was going to be politically tricky, so they had to manufacture a pretext. The Iranians weren't dumb enough to take their bait--Uncle Scam tried to provoke them by shooting down an Iranian airliner in 1988--but Saddam Hussein was dumb enough. They allowed the Kuwaitis to slant-drill into Iraqi territory, then, when Iraq complained, their ambassador (April Glaspie) told Saddam that they didn't take positions of intramural Arab disputes. They could have easily chosen to either to reign in the Kuwaitis or to warn Saddam, but they wanted to lure Saddam into a war in Kuwait. Presto!

    That's the backstory. It had nothing to do with removing Saddam from power, breaking up Iraq and creating total anarchy there. That was never Poppy Bush's goal. That was the Zionist/Neocon plan for the middle east, the Oded Yinon Plan. That was rolled out 12 years later under Baby Bush, who, unlike Poppy, was a total Zio-muppet.
    , @MarkinLA
    I believe he had to keep up the fantasy that he was operating under the UN resolution with a cadre of Arab allies. The resolution only called for the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait and the coalition would have shattered with a full scale invasion of Iraq.

    Of course, if we would have gone ahead and everything turn out much better than we have now, all would have been forgiven but who knows how it would have ended up. Kurds in the north pissing off Turkey, Shias in the east aligning with Iran, and something like ISIS in the middle? I doubt there would be any good result.
    , @anonymous
    The people fighting for America who died were not boys.

    Grow a pair and speak like a man , "Another Dad".

    Show some respect for your betters.

    (I know you won't, you will just, as you always do, whine about something or other, as if you were the person we should admire. Narcissism is a disease, little "Another Dad".)

    Hate on me all you want but don't you ever again call the men who died in battle "boys", "Another Dad".

    , @Jim Don Bob
    “Gentlemen. If you're going to take Vienna, take it.”

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7598655-gentlemen-if-you-re-going-to-take-vienna-take-it

    PS how would I do the above as a hyperlink?
    , @blank-misgivings
    Nope. The thinking was Realist. Oust Saddam and you would hand it over de facto to Iran. The aim was fairly sensible (given the frame of a less than sensible devotion to organizing the affairs of the ME) - balance Iran and Iraq.
    , @Fidelios Automata
    Who cares? None of our business. The better approach would have been to do nothing at all. Saddam's secular regime was no worse than the rich Kuwaiti swine-ogopoly.
  41. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    For example, he was enough of a globalist to take us to war in Iraq, thereby installing the very first US bases in the ME. But he was still enough of a realist to avoiding actually invading the country, which infuriated the neocons.
     
    I always find this backhanded praise of Bush's judgement in the first Gulf War bizarre. The failure to oust Saddam was a disaster.

    What was the "message" from the Gulf War? Roughly, if you grab up your neighbor's territory, the US *may*--if the pres feels like US prestige is on the line--stir himself, assemble a coalition of nations and kick you out ... but leave you in power! So, you know, do your calculation carefully, but if the odds look good … go for it!

    Basically the Gulf War was the classic "wounding the bear". We created an enemy, who we had to police in perpetuity, who was eventually--as other nations got tired of the sanctions regime--going to get his oil money flowing giving him a big wallet and who now was pissed at us, with a big chip on his shoulder. Great work Poppy!

    No. You either don't do it and take the hit to your prestige with the Gulf Arab oil pumping kleptocrats. Or you do it and make sure you kill or at least oust Saddam. Not "fix Iraq" or "nation build", but basic crime and punishment: you messed things up and made me us get up and cost the lives of American boys, you pay.

    Not “fix Iraq” or “nation build”, but basic crime and punishment: you messed things up and made me us get up and cost the lives of American boys, you pay.

    Uh, Saddam and Iraq were made to pay. Dearly.

    Did you see any other Middle Eastern states–other than Israel–attempt to acquire territory by conquest after the first Gulf War?

  42. HW did “manage” to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, and leave depleted Uranium lying around Iraq to cause cancer for decades….https://www.theburningplatform.com/2018/12/02/if-you-murdered-a-bunch-of-people-mass-murder-is-your-single-defining-legacy/#more-187836

  43. @AnotherDad

    For example, he was enough of a globalist to take us to war in Iraq, thereby installing the very first US bases in the ME. But he was still enough of a realist to avoiding actually invading the country, which infuriated the neocons.
     
    I always find this backhanded praise of Bush's judgement in the first Gulf War bizarre. The failure to oust Saddam was a disaster.

    What was the "message" from the Gulf War? Roughly, if you grab up your neighbor's territory, the US *may*--if the pres feels like US prestige is on the line--stir himself, assemble a coalition of nations and kick you out ... but leave you in power! So, you know, do your calculation carefully, but if the odds look good … go for it!

    Basically the Gulf War was the classic "wounding the bear". We created an enemy, who we had to police in perpetuity, who was eventually--as other nations got tired of the sanctions regime--going to get his oil money flowing giving him a big wallet and who now was pissed at us, with a big chip on his shoulder. Great work Poppy!

    No. You either don't do it and take the hit to your prestige with the Gulf Arab oil pumping kleptocrats. Or you do it and make sure you kill or at least oust Saddam. Not "fix Iraq" or "nation build", but basic crime and punishment: you messed things up and made me us get up and cost the lives of American boys, you pay.

    Iraq was indeed the Skull and Bones approach to war…Kill vast numbers of people for no particular reason, then abandon ship for another adventure.

  44. @Steve Sailer
    He's a good writer.

    One iSteve commenter was one of 3 grad students with Neil deGrasse Tyson. The third grad student was an inept TA and lost every single one of her students over the semester. Our commenter was proud that he wound up with 40% of her students in competition with NdGT.

    Neil was–i assume still is–a very friendly and personable guy. Fine/pleasant colleague to share the TA duties with. (And he was also a well built and handsome guy so was doing well with the ladies back in the day.)

    Neil’s not a great intellect or great scientist. But hey, most of us didn’t end up making science hay either. As i told everyone when suddenly Neil popped up as the black Carl Sagan–i.e. science PR flack–“perfect meeting of man and career”.

    Posted by Neil deGrasse Tyson on Saturday, December 1, 2018

    This was a well written, pretty convincing defense. From the tone of it, i’d guess Neil has *not* been a Bill Clinton style hound, and there are no credible allegations “out there” that are going to come out and torpedo him. What’s there is typical female attention seeking behavior–which has been unleashed in spades by #MeToo.

    (Aside: AnotherMom does not remember this Tchiya Amet. So she was in and out of the astronomy department pretty quickly–as Neil indicates.)

  45. @Anon
    LA riots made him look weak, especially after tough guy act of Gulf War.

    His son also acted tough abroad but was looked esp weak with Katrina and Negroes.

    Last Republican to win California.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/ElectoralCollege1988.svg/1200px-ElectoralCollege1988.svg.png

    Trump will be last one to win Texas and Florida.

    Tragedy of American Conservatism is white conservatives do most to defend and defer to Jews who do most to demean and destroy white conservatives.

    Last Republican to win California.

    That intrigued me so I looked at other states. The table at this Wikipedia page makes it fairly easy to track presidential party elections results by state and year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_results_by_state

    If I read correctly, the 1988 election was the last Republican victory for the following states:

    California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Vermont

    Some of the other patterns are interesting as well. For instance, Iowa went D in every election from 1988 to 2016 except 2004 and 2016. Any thoughts on that?

    Some of the regional patterns are also interesting. For example, the Northeast (CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT) went 100% R in 1984, 6/3 R/D in 1988, but has seen only 2 R victories since then (NH 2000 and PA 2016).

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    For example, the Northeast (CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT) went 100% R in 1984, 6/3 R/D in 1988, but has seen only 2 R victories since then (NH 2000 and PA 2016).
     
    Nelson Rockefeller Republicanism is dead. It died with Bush 41’s loss to Bill Clinton.

    And that election was also the last time Asians voted for the GOP in a presidential election.
    , @bomag
    Reminds us, again, that politics tends to drift leftward over time with the aid of technological advancement; ever faster and faster. Bill Clinton and crew in the 90's sound right-wing today.
  46. anonymous[739] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s pretty clear George HW Bush and the entire Bush family/cult wanted/wants to unite Mexico (and also all of Central America) with our United States.

    But is it also reality that the Bush family/cult wants to unite all of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria and the entire Muslim world (2 billion) with our United States, Western Europe and Sweden?

    After 16 out of the 19 9/11/01 terrorists, mass murderers of our people in our country proved to be Saudi Nationals, was there any member of the Bush family, Bush enterouge that might have said:

    “You know maybe it’s not such a great idea to let the entire Islamic world come to the United States on student visas to attend flight school in Florida”.

    I see all the testimonies my well dressed White Americans saying how much they respected George HW Bush and his service to our country, do any of these people have a clue about immigration, Islam, the 3rd world invasion of our country?

  47. @AnotherDad

    For example, he was enough of a globalist to take us to war in Iraq, thereby installing the very first US bases in the ME. But he was still enough of a realist to avoiding actually invading the country, which infuriated the neocons.
     
    I always find this backhanded praise of Bush's judgement in the first Gulf War bizarre. The failure to oust Saddam was a disaster.

    What was the "message" from the Gulf War? Roughly, if you grab up your neighbor's territory, the US *may*--if the pres feels like US prestige is on the line--stir himself, assemble a coalition of nations and kick you out ... but leave you in power! So, you know, do your calculation carefully, but if the odds look good … go for it!

    Basically the Gulf War was the classic "wounding the bear". We created an enemy, who we had to police in perpetuity, who was eventually--as other nations got tired of the sanctions regime--going to get his oil money flowing giving him a big wallet and who now was pissed at us, with a big chip on his shoulder. Great work Poppy!

    No. You either don't do it and take the hit to your prestige with the Gulf Arab oil pumping kleptocrats. Or you do it and make sure you kill or at least oust Saddam. Not "fix Iraq" or "nation build", but basic crime and punishment: you messed things up and made me us get up and cost the lives of American boys, you pay.

    I agree wholeheartedly. It’s not punishment if you leave someone in power, especially in the Middle East. The tragedy of all this is that an invasion and occupation of Iraq after Desert Storm had a much greater chance of success than what transpired in OIF.

    Our foolhardy intervention and then the ignominious withdrawal from Somalia showed the Iraqis (and others) a much more efficacious method of combating our overwhelmingly powerful firepower.

    In 1991, none of those conditions existed and the Iraqis were overwhelmed and completely awestruck by our military capacity. The Kurds and the Shia were much more friendly and would have been far more compliant to our direction. An American-installed Iraqi leader would have enjoyed a much greater confidence then. Paradoxically, weakening Saddam Hussein in 1991 made Iraq both more unstable and less amenable to subsequent occupation, yet still left him a thorn in our side.

    The great tragedy of all that followed – 9/11, the Iraq debacle, Obama, etc. – was a consequence of Bush 41’s timidity and lack of confidence (which are amply shown in his own writings) after the utter destruction of Saddam’s military capacity and the complete psychological dominance we had gained temporarily. It was our Cannae.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I agree wholeheartedly. It’s not punishment if you leave someone in power, especially in the Middle East.
     
    What happened damn well is punishment. Iraq's military destroyed, 100s of thousands of Iraqis killed, its sovereignty limited by "no fly" zones, crippling sanctions, emboldened and US-supported Kurd factions.

    But the US never should have made war against Iraq in the first place.

    , @RonaldB
    The reasoning doesn't make any sense to me.

    You say that if we had deposed Saddam during the first Gulf War, all the ill effects we saw from deposing him in 2003 would not have appeared: the unleashing of jihadis, who blew up US troops and fellow Iraqis, the infiltration of Iran into the religious and political structure of Iraq, and most puzzling: the idea that the particular Iraqi con-artist we would have supported for premier would enjoy more control or more prestige than the one we settled on in 2003.

    You state that Saddam would have been punished for his decision to oppose the US. But, we know that the US ambassador to Iraq gave him mixed or completely incorrect signals when he sounded her out about the possibility of invading Kuwait. This is in line with a consistent pattern by the US in fuzzy thinking and fuzzy-headed interventions in the area. The US supported the dissolution not only of Syria (unsuccessful) but of Libya (successful, except for unleashing massive waves of migrants, and giving jihadis a comfortable base).

    The effects of keeping Saddam in power were merely nuisance: having to monitor his weapons program, monitor his military movements, shooting down a plane once in a while. We had a base in Kuwait paid for by the Kuwaitis. Iraq still served as a counter to Iran. Saddam kept a lid on the Muslim jihadis and criminals. Iraqis were far better off under his government, although the results could be pretty horrible for some individuals.

    This is compared to after deposing Saddam, when we spent trillions of dollars pacifying Iraq, lost upwards of 4 thousand soldiers, provided a base for ISIS, and got a religious structure and political structure very favorable to Iran. Plus, got thousands of Muslim "migrants" to the US who had to be given refuge because they were our "allies" in Iraq and were now in danger.
    , @donut
    We know how to win a battle but not how to win a war .
    , @anonymous
    You sound like expert military men. Do you fellas think "we" could have won in Korea and Vietnam, too?

    As a mere American, I was ashamed and disgusted by Desert Storm at the time, and have been ever since. You have looked into Nurse Nayirah, etc., haven't you?
  48. @South Texas Guy
    Like you've noted before, life is good in Mexico for the upper crust, and lots of money can be made there. But there's also that Spanish conquistador element running very strongly through it, so biz in Mexico is a dicey proposition.

    I know white folks with land holdings in Mexico who made sure their kids were born in Mexico to preserve citizenship, and thus full ownership, not one of those 99-year lease agreements.

    Not too sure about now, but growing up, solidly middle class (to us) mall anchor stores (JC Penney, Sears, etc.) and a few upper class stores in South Texas were among the top earners in the nation because Mexican nationals had a hard time getting decent quality merchandise in their own country. If Wal-Mart was allowed to go in whole hog, it would kill the small biz in Mexico.

    Because of NAFTA, Wal-Mart is in Mexico now bigtime:

    Walmart de México y Centroamérica, also known as Walmex, Walmart’s largest division outside the U.S. as of October 31, 2018, consists of 2,397 stores around the country, including 272 Walmart Supercenter stores and 163 Sam’s Club stores

    From the wiki.

    Many of the 2,400 stores are smaller format stores that have no equivalent in the US but still they are a very big player in the Mexican retail and grocery sectors and have over 200,000 employees.

    • Replies: @South Texas Guy
    Whoops! Egg on my face. I was tired and going from old memories when I posted that. Should have at least done a quick fact check. Sorry.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Because of NAFTA, Wal-Mart is in Mexico now bigtime:
     
    ¿Hecho en China?


    https://pro2-bar-s3-cdn-cf5.myportfolio.com/316f69a6db988a1ccb3628aaa3be3860/6b0f3f0b8eed523f2b35b847_rw_1920.jpg?h=6c1f975bc0ea6d8b6b44068110918d9a

  49. @res

    Last Republican to win California.
     
    That intrigued me so I looked at other states. The table at this Wikipedia page makes it fairly easy to track presidential party elections results by state and year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_results_by_state

    If I read correctly, the 1988 election was the last Republican victory for the following states:

    California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Vermont

    Some of the other patterns are interesting as well. For instance, Iowa went D in every election from 1988 to 2016 except 2004 and 2016. Any thoughts on that?

    Some of the regional patterns are also interesting. For example, the Northeast (CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT) went 100% R in 1984, 6/3 R/D in 1988, but has seen only 2 R victories since then (NH 2000 and PA 2016).

    For example, the Northeast (CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT) went 100% R in 1984, 6/3 R/D in 1988, but has seen only 2 R victories since then (NH 2000 and PA 2016).

    Nelson Rockefeller Republicanism is dead. It died with Bush 41’s loss to Bill Clinton.

    And that election was also the last time Asians voted for the GOP in a presidential election.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Interesting facts, thank you.

    As for the Asian voting population of the USA in 1992, I imagine it was insignificant outside of Hawaii, parts of California, and not many other enclaves back then.

    Growing up in northern NJ in the 70s and 80s, pretty near to NYC, it was unusual and noteworthy when the first Chinese family and first Korean family came to our town. Ended up being friendly with a boy from each family.
    , @res
    Thanks. But why did the change manifest in 1992? In other words, what changed between the 1988 and 1992 elections? I can understand what you describe happening post Clinton's election, but had it already happened before the election, or was Clinton's win due to other factors with the lasting changes you describe following later?

    Reading more closely (e.g. Asians voted 55-31 for GHWB in 1992) and pondering a bit, I think I am just reaffirming your true point, but wanted to double check.
    Some data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Americans_in_government_and_politics#Voting_trends_and_party_affiliation

    I had been unaware of this:

    In the 2014 midterm elections, based on exit polls, 50% of Asian Americans voted Republican, while 49% voted Democrat; this swing towards voting for Republicans was a shift from the strong Democratic vote in 2012, and had not reached 50% since 1996.
     
    Do you think that is meaningful? I understand (most) Asians dislike Trump (makes sense culturally), but what happened in 2018? Asians tilted strongly D in 2018 (77/23): http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/08/the-2018-midterm-vote-divisions-by-race-gender-education/
    What was SO different between 2014 and 2018 for Asian voters?
  50. @eah
    Pro tip: the elder Bush will be more or less a footnote -- in 1988 he fell into the role of Republican nominee after 8 years as VP -- and won against one of the weakest Democratic candidates of the 20th century -- Reagan will always be given credit (rightly or wrongly) for deep-freezing the Cold War -- speaking of "tumultuous", Bush will be mostly remembered for the first Gulf War (think incubators) -- and speaking (again) of the 1990 immigration law: it probably will have contributed significantly to moving forward the date when it will be, for all practical purposes, nearly impossible for a Republican to be elected President.

    Nice going.

    and won against one of the weakest Democratic candidates of the 20th century

    This is 20/20 hindsight. In the spring of ’88 Dukakis was ahead in the polls by something like 15 points. No VP had succeeded a President by election (as opposed to death or resignation) since van Buren in 1836. Bush ran a very effective campaign and was able to portray Dukakis as a soft on crime, soft on defense, liberal.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    You’re right. And, as stupid as it is, it didn’t help that Dukakis was short and conventionally not attractive.

    It has been forty-two years since we elected president who wasn’t WELL above average in height, both for white Europeans and for the national population. And the taller candidate has won

    6’3” Trump 2016 beat Shrillery 5’5”

    6’1” Hussein-Obama 2008 and 2012 beat shorty McCain (5’7 or 5’8”)

    6’0” George Bush junior 2004 beat John Kerry 6’4”
    6’0” George Bush junior 2000 beat Al Gore 6’1”

    6’2” Bill Clinton 1992 and 1996

    6’2” George Bush senior (“H.W.”) 1988

    6’1” Reagan 1980 and 1984

    5’9-10” Carter 1976 beat Ford 6’0”

    In the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson stood 6’3.5”, which was oddly tall fifty to sixty years ago.

    In the 1860s, Lincoln stood 6’4”, which was freakishly tall back then.

    In the late 1700s, George Washington was a giant for his times at 6’2”.

    The taller candidate has won the solid majority of elections since the 1950s, sometimes taller by only half an inch but sometimes an inch or two taller.
  51. @Almost Missouri

    "LA riots made him look weak, especially after tough guy act of Gulf War.

    His son also acted tough abroad but was looked esp weak with Katrina and Negroes."
     
    By design, the US Presidency was supposed to have the character of a monarch abroad to contend with foreign powers, but be weak and limited at home to prevent tyranny. Whatever else their faults, the Bushes--consciously or not--still subscribed to this maxim: strength abroad, deference at home.


    Obama, the Clintons, other Dem candidates have reversed the formula for the Executive: weak against foreigners, powerful against the natives. As one might expect from those who view the natives as hostile aliens and view foreigners as incipient allies.

    By design, the US Presidency was supposed to have the character of a monarch abroad to contend with foreign powers, but be weak and limited at home to prevent tyranny. Whatever else their faults, the Bushes–consciously or not–still subscribed to this maxim: strength abroad, deference at home.

    A fine trait when your domestic rivals share your manners, values, and goals for the country as a common project (or, dare I say it, shared patrimony). Terrible when you have domestic opponents who are eliminationists.

    One of Bush 41’s great sins was alienating conservatives with his fecklessness and dishonesty and then unleashing the Clintons upon the country at large, with the consequent coarsening of national politics.

    He inherited “morning in America again” from Reagan and left the country with Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama (and some would say Trump). That’s his legacy.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    A great point but a nuance must be mentioned: the problem only arises for failure to be more powerful abroad – i.e., dealing with foreigners, which includes those wanting to enter your country.

    "No thanks, we're happy with our surplus of resources and consequent high standards of living, and if we do ever decide we need more people, we'll just have bigger families – making children is fun, after all! Try Germany or Sweden; I hear they are big fans of autogenocide."

    History teaches time and again the foregoing is the only proper position to take toward foreigners trying to enter a country. If that position had been taken here, there would be no created dilemma about whether government ought to be weak domestically.

    The trouble is when you start letting foreign invaders in just because they aren't wearing uniforms, and carry on doing so for generations, an inextricable shitshow ensues about what is foreign and what is domestic.
  52. @anonymous
    As the RIP thread resumes, a clarifying question: What is, and how do the people of this country benefit from, a "triumphant era for American foreign policy"?

    Very few on this website bought into the celebration of Senator McCain. But a former President dies, and it's time to hotstove his Risk stats.

    What is, and how do the people of this country benefit from, a “triumphant era for American foreign policy”?

    I suppose it could be asked of any country.

    The success stories are when you move and populate another place. If you just win some military battles and garrison the place, not so much.

  53. @Twinkie
    I agree wholeheartedly. It’s not punishment if you leave someone in power, especially in the Middle East. The tragedy of all this is that an invasion and occupation of Iraq after Desert Storm had a much greater chance of success than what transpired in OIF.

    Our foolhardy intervention and then the ignominious withdrawal from Somalia showed the Iraqis (and others) a much more efficacious method of combating our overwhelmingly powerful firepower.

    In 1991, none of those conditions existed and the Iraqis were overwhelmed and completely awestruck by our military capacity. The Kurds and the Shia were much more friendly and would have been far more compliant to our direction. An American-installed Iraqi leader would have enjoyed a much greater confidence then. Paradoxically, weakening Saddam Hussein in 1991 made Iraq both more unstable and less amenable to subsequent occupation, yet still left him a thorn in our side.

    The great tragedy of all that followed - 9/11, the Iraq debacle, Obama, etc. - was a consequence of Bush 41’s timidity and lack of confidence (which are amply shown in his own writings) after the utter destruction of Saddam’s military capacity and the complete psychological dominance we had gained temporarily. It was our Cannae.

    I agree wholeheartedly. It’s not punishment if you leave someone in power, especially in the Middle East.

    What happened damn well is punishment. Iraq’s military destroyed, 100s of thousands of Iraqis killed, its sovereignty limited by “no fly” zones, crippling sanctions, emboldened and US-supported Kurd factions.

    But the US never should have made war against Iraq in the first place.

  54. The cold war/fear of the USSR, maybe, allowed the Republicans to win a few elections they otherwise wouldn’t have.

    Papa Bush was a manager/caretaker, not a great visionary, hired solely to manage the cold war and status quo.

    In 1988 with the Soviet Union still clinging to life, it wasn’t safe yet to elect liberal democrats with thin resumes, but by 1992 cold war credentials were old fashioned.

    A Slick Willie in the White Housewas impossible before 1992.

  55. Answered George H. and double-u Bush
    When asked why he grabbed chicks by the tush:
    “It’s my wife that I love
    When push comes to shove,
    But shove tends to revert back to push.”

  56. I notice Diaz was admired (ardently, even!) by “the civilised world” rather than “the rest of the civilised world” or “others in the civilised world.”

    You must admire the accurate writing.

  57. @Anonymous
    GHW rather than having any innate talent, insight or ability had the pure blind luck of the gambler in that he was matched, at the critical juncture, with such a uniquely useless and incompetent opponent as Gorbachev, surely not only the 'biggest fool in Christendom' but the Biggest Fool this side of Creation. The cosmic joker made flesh.

    The Deep State behind GHW knew full well they were dealing with a damned incompetent low IQ fool - and an insufferably vain, shallow and pompous one to boot. They couldn' believe their luck. Like hard seasoned poker players around a Vegas table who cannot believe their lucky stars that a very very rich and very very stupid and arrogant fool is at the table, the sharpers of the State Department fleeced the cretin for all he was worth - and then some!

    Such opportunities are few and far between, perhaps happening once in a Sharper's lifetime. And Boy! How does a sharper know how to fleece a Booby! The words 'merciless', 'no pity' and 'shark-like' bear absolutely no justice to a sharper with the scent of Booby in his nose. And thus the sharpers cleaned up. Gorbachev was the Emperor left literally naked. No Party, no nation, no 'presidency' merely diabolical chaos plus starvation and epic looting in its wake. Not even a cloth to hide the pompous impotent potentate bollocks.

    And of course, the sharpers were laughing all the way to the bank. The winners, as the saying goes, takes all. No boo hoo hoping about those 'nasty men' from Gorb the Liar to the Small Claims Court. Tough titty, you stupid fool, say the sharpers plunged (perhaps metaphorically) balls deep in the porntress of their choice. Such is the way of the world, the Nietzschean law of the strong.

    And what was it about the life cycle of parasitoid wasps - one of nature's most successful, ancient and abundant genera, which so shook the faith and confidence of Charles Darwin? Surely no sentimentalist he.

    In fairness to Gorbachev, he came to the table with a lousy hand; the rot was through the bone in his country; kind of like getting the controls of a train just before it plunges off the cliff.

  58. @res

    Last Republican to win California.
     
    That intrigued me so I looked at other states. The table at this Wikipedia page makes it fairly easy to track presidential party elections results by state and year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_results_by_state

    If I read correctly, the 1988 election was the last Republican victory for the following states:

    California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Vermont

    Some of the other patterns are interesting as well. For instance, Iowa went D in every election from 1988 to 2016 except 2004 and 2016. Any thoughts on that?

    Some of the regional patterns are also interesting. For example, the Northeast (CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT) went 100% R in 1984, 6/3 R/D in 1988, but has seen only 2 R victories since then (NH 2000 and PA 2016).

    Reminds us, again, that politics tends to drift leftward over time with the aid of technological advancement; ever faster and faster. Bill Clinton and crew in the 90’s sound right-wing today.

  59. @reiner Tor
    OT

    Five years ago! The pain is still indescribable.

    Paul William Walker IV (September 12, 1973 – November 30, 2013) was an American actor best known for his role as Brian O'Conner in The Fast and the Furious franchise. Walker first gained prominence in 1999 with roles in the teen films She's All That and Varsity Blues. In 2001, he gained international fame for his role in the street racing action film The Fast and the Furious (2001), a role he reprised in five of the next six installments, but died in 2013 in the middle of filming Furious 7 (2015).

    His legacy lives on! He died a heroic death trying to bring about a better world, and as a result we still enjoy the Paul Walker jokes in the iSteve comment section. It’s an inspiration for us all to constantly improve ourselves and drive wonderful cars.

    It’s still too soon!

  60. @Twinkie

    By design, the US Presidency was supposed to have the character of a monarch abroad to contend with foreign powers, but be weak and limited at home to prevent tyranny. Whatever else their faults, the Bushes–consciously or not–still subscribed to this maxim: strength abroad, deference at home.
     
    A fine trait when your domestic rivals share your manners, values, and goals for the country as a common project (or, dare I say it, shared patrimony). Terrible when you have domestic opponents who are eliminationists.

    One of Bush 41’s great sins was alienating conservatives with his fecklessness and dishonesty and then unleashing the Clintons upon the country at large, with the consequent coarsening of national politics.

    He inherited “morning in America again” from Reagan and left the country with Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama (and some would say Trump). That’s his legacy.

    A great point but a nuance must be mentioned: the problem only arises for failure to be more powerful abroad – i.e., dealing with foreigners, which includes those wanting to enter your country.

    “No thanks, we’re happy with our surplus of resources and consequent high standards of living, and if we do ever decide we need more people, we’ll just have bigger families – making children is fun, after all! Try Germany or Sweden; I hear they are big fans of autogenocide.”

    History teaches time and again the foregoing is the only proper position to take toward foreigners trying to enter a country. If that position had been taken here, there would be no created dilemma about whether government ought to be weak domestically.

    The trouble is when you start letting foreign invaders in just because they aren’t wearing uniforms, and carry on doing so for generations, an inextricable shitshow ensues about what is foreign and what is domestic.

  61. @Twinkie

    For example, the Northeast (CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT) went 100% R in 1984, 6/3 R/D in 1988, but has seen only 2 R victories since then (NH 2000 and PA 2016).
     
    Nelson Rockefeller Republicanism is dead. It died with Bush 41’s loss to Bill Clinton.

    And that election was also the last time Asians voted for the GOP in a presidential election.

    Interesting facts, thank you.

    As for the Asian voting population of the USA in 1992, I imagine it was insignificant outside of Hawaii, parts of California, and not many other enclaves back then.

    Growing up in northern NJ in the 70s and 80s, pretty near to NYC, it was unusual and noteworthy when the first Chinese family and first Korean family came to our town. Ended up being friendly with a boy from each family.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    As for the Asian voting population of the USA in 1992, I imagine it was insignificant outside of Hawaii, parts of California, and not many other enclaves back then.
     
    Asian population in the U.S. c. 1990 was roughly 7 million out of the overall population under 250 million. So it was a bit under 3% (as opposed to roughly 6% as of 2016) . Smaller than (half of) what it is today, to be sure, but not insignificant. I think, though, the Asian population outside Hawaii was heavily concentrated in L.A., San Francisco, and NYC, much more so than is the case today.
  62. @AnotherDad

    For example, he was enough of a globalist to take us to war in Iraq, thereby installing the very first US bases in the ME. But he was still enough of a realist to avoiding actually invading the country, which infuriated the neocons.
     
    I always find this backhanded praise of Bush's judgement in the first Gulf War bizarre. The failure to oust Saddam was a disaster.

    What was the "message" from the Gulf War? Roughly, if you grab up your neighbor's territory, the US *may*--if the pres feels like US prestige is on the line--stir himself, assemble a coalition of nations and kick you out ... but leave you in power! So, you know, do your calculation carefully, but if the odds look good … go for it!

    Basically the Gulf War was the classic "wounding the bear". We created an enemy, who we had to police in perpetuity, who was eventually--as other nations got tired of the sanctions regime--going to get his oil money flowing giving him a big wallet and who now was pissed at us, with a big chip on his shoulder. Great work Poppy!

    No. You either don't do it and take the hit to your prestige with the Gulf Arab oil pumping kleptocrats. Or you do it and make sure you kill or at least oust Saddam. Not "fix Iraq" or "nation build", but basic crime and punishment: you messed things up and made me us get up and cost the lives of American boys, you pay.

    Look at it from the POV of Saddam. That man blew the greatest opportunity of the century: why stop at Kuwait and not continue in to seize Saudi Arabia’s oil fields and infrastructure? There was literally nothing to stop him. Having seized the infrastructure, no war to dislodge him could have been launched, since he now had the oil-dependent industrialized West by the cojones. Recall that he did set the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire before restreating. Imagine the loss of Saudi production for a year and what it would have done to the economies of the world.

    April Glaspie essentially told Saddam he could take Kuwait. Then, after he did so, we reneged on the deal. GHWB got authorization from the UN only to remove Saddam from Kuwait. He did so, claiming also to have undone the Vietnam malaise in the process.

    In counterfactual history, Saddam becomes the second-biggest loser after Hitler, who might have ended the war with more daring attacks. Saddam could have controlled all the oil resources of Iraq (and there are a lot, and the lifting costs for the oil are the lowest in the planet), Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, and there would have been nothing we could have done once he did. Instead, he trusted the Bush family, and paid the price.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    That man blew the greatest opportunity of the century: why stop at Kuwait and not continue in to seize Saudi Arabia’s oil fields and infrastructure? There was literally nothing to stop him.
     
    True. After Saddam Hussein seized Kuwait, the only American military units immediately available in Saudi Arabia were air units (whose crews were told to take off, attack the Iraqi units, and then rally back in Bahrain in case the Iraqis crossed the Saudi border) and some rapid deployment army units, mostly elements of the 82nd Airborne Division with very light man-portable anti-tank weapons. All the heavy mechanized units were en route from Germany and would take weeks to arrive.

    If the Iraqi mechanized units had attacked in strength across the border, there was a pretty good chance the Saudi defenses would have crumbled and Saddam may have been able to occupy Saudi Arabia as well.

    Having seized the infrastructure, no war to dislodge him could have been launched, since he now had the oil-dependent industrialized West by the cojones.
     
    However, this would have been a high reward/very high risk strategy for Saddam Hussein. He'd have (temporarily) controlled Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, but in all likelihood the response from the U.S. and the rest of the world would have been even more overwhelming (and the Iraqi units would have been far more spread out and extended), and almost certainly he'd have been defeated and deposed.

    The best strategy for Saddam would have been to simply loot Kuwait and then withdraw back to Iraq. Then the U.S. would not have been able to muster a coalition and would not have had the casus belli to deploy heavy units from Germany. Saddam would enjoy increased prestige domestically for having "punished" Kuwait, his army would be intact with a greatly improved morale, and he might have had a good chance of the Saudis and Kuwaitis being more deferential subsequently.
  63. @Twinkie

    For example, the Northeast (CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT) went 100% R in 1984, 6/3 R/D in 1988, but has seen only 2 R victories since then (NH 2000 and PA 2016).
     
    Nelson Rockefeller Republicanism is dead. It died with Bush 41’s loss to Bill Clinton.

    And that election was also the last time Asians voted for the GOP in a presidential election.

    Thanks. But why did the change manifest in 1992? In other words, what changed between the 1988 and 1992 elections? I can understand what you describe happening post Clinton’s election, but had it already happened before the election, or was Clinton’s win due to other factors with the lasting changes you describe following later?

    Reading more closely (e.g. Asians voted 55-31 for GHWB in 1992) and pondering a bit, I think I am just reaffirming your true point, but wanted to double check.
    Some data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Americans_in_government_and_politics#Voting_trends_and_party_affiliation

    I had been unaware of this:

    In the 2014 midterm elections, based on exit polls, 50% of Asian Americans voted Republican, while 49% voted Democrat; this swing towards voting for Republicans was a shift from the strong Democratic vote in 2012, and had not reached 50% since 1996.

    Do you think that is meaningful? I understand (most) Asians dislike Trump (makes sense culturally), but what happened in 2018? Asians tilted strongly D in 2018 (77/23): http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/08/the-2018-midterm-vote-divisions-by-race-gender-education/
    What was SO different between 2014 and 2018 for Asian voters?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    My guess would be that 2014 was related to the Ferguson Effect. Asians tend to vote GOP if Democrats become the black party and are seen as condoning and even supporting riotous behaviors. Trump is likely (and incorrectly) seen as white nationalist by Asians and that probably explains 2016-18.

    I have a Korean neighbor who is a die-hard Republican. His idol is Reagan. He’s your stereotypical small government, pro-military, Christian conservative. But he loathes Trump and voted for Clinton, the first time in his life he voted for a Democrat. Obviously that’s just one guy, but I do think there is considerable distaste for Trump among Asian voters in general.
  64. @Jack D

    and won against one of the weakest Democratic candidates of the 20th century
     
    This is 20/20 hindsight. In the spring of '88 Dukakis was ahead in the polls by something like 15 points. No VP had succeeded a President by election (as opposed to death or resignation) since van Buren in 1836. Bush ran a very effective campaign and was able to portray Dukakis as a soft on crime, soft on defense, liberal.

    You’re right. And, as stupid as it is, it didn’t help that Dukakis was short and conventionally not attractive.

    It has been forty-two years since we elected president who wasn’t WELL above average in height, both for white Europeans and for the national population. And the taller candidate has won

    6’3” Trump 2016 beat Shrillery 5’5”

    6’1” Hussein-Obama 2008 and 2012 beat shorty McCain (5’7 or 5’8”)

    6’0” George Bush junior 2004 beat John Kerry 6’4”
    6’0” George Bush junior 2000 beat Al Gore 6’1”

    6’2” Bill Clinton 1992 and 1996

    6’2” George Bush senior (“H.W.”) 1988

    6’1” Reagan 1980 and 1984

    5’9-10” Carter 1976 beat Ford 6’0”

    In the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson stood 6’3.5”, which was oddly tall fifty to sixty years ago.

    In the 1860s, Lincoln stood 6’4”, which was freakishly tall back then.

    In the late 1700s, George Washington was a giant for his times at 6’2”.

    The taller candidate has won the solid majority of elections since the 1950s, sometimes taller by only half an inch but sometimes an inch or two taller.

  65. @JohnnyWalker123

    My impression is that Bush didn’t come to the Oval Office with too many long range plans, but instead simply had a lot of confidence in his ability to manage in whatever circumstances came up.

     

    My impression was that HW Bush (as a card-carrying member of the old establishment) saw the end of the Cold War as an opportunity to transition into a new era. An era in which the nations of the world could be linked together through trade, investment, migration, technology, and political-economic unions (such as NAFTA and NATO). He attempted to be a "big picture" architect of that new era.

    In that era, financiers, business interests, entrepreneurs, and technocrats would profit under a global Pax Americana. As third world economies grew, workers in the world's less developed regions would increase their purchasing power and create new markets. If threats arose to the order, those threats could be neutralized through broad military alliances (like the Gulf War coalition).

    At this point, it's been around 25-30 years since this "New World Order" came into being. For better and for worse, this era of globalization was initiated by HW Bush, with subsequent presidents (Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama) carrying on his legacy. You could say that other foreign leaders, especially from the Anglo-Euro zone, have been extremely supportive. For example, John Major and Tony Blair helped transition the UK (and even other parts of the Anglo-Euro zone) into the age of globalization.

    One reason that Donald Trump is viewed so negatively by the global establishment is because he's an affront to globalization. He threatens an order under which many influential people have become politically and economically enriched. The same can be said for other far-right figures (Le Pen of France, Farage of the UK, , Salvini of Italy, etc). The same can even be said of Russia and China, with both regimes being nationalist-authoritarian "renegades" who refuse to bend their knee to US-Anglo-Euro order.

    Interestingly, the far-left is also viewed as an affront to globalization. While the far-left isn't viewed with the same intensity of negativity, far-left individuals and organizations tend to be dismissed as being "fringe" or "extremist." Just look at how anti-globalization protesters are portrayed anytime there's a trade summit.

    There's often a strange convergence between the far-left and far-right. Back in the 2000 election, both Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan sounded remarkably similar. In 2016, there were more than a few times when Donald Trump spoke like Bernie Sanders. In 2017, Brexit enjoyed support from both the British far-right and the far-left. While the far-right and far-left differ in their racial and cultural attitudes, there's a shared revulsion towards financiers, oligarchs, military interventionism, and globalist institutions.

    HW Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama had their differences. What brought them together (along with foreign leaders like Tony Blair) was a shared commitment to globalization. It shouldn't be surprising that the Bushes voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. When you really think about, it shouldn't be surprising that Dennis Kucinich's sister voted for Donald Trump.

    I see HW Bush as a tremendously significant figure because he's the father of the current world order. I think that's one reason why so many political and media figures have been so effusive in praising him. This is HW Bush's world, the rest of us are just living in it. Regardless of how you feel about him and his impact, it's hard to deny that he was a giant among men.

    With that said, I think there will come a point when the current social order breaks down. Mostly due to a combination of unsustainable debt accumulation, military overstretch, and financial implosion. At that point, the US-Anglo-Euro empire will be forced to abandon the mantle of global leadership. The world will then transition from a unipolar Western-dominated order to a more of a multipolar order. In that new order, China will be the preeminent nation.

    I would guess that we're likely 10-15 years away from a full transition in the global social order, but it's already beginning to slowly happen. The global ruling class think they can somehow neutralize Trump and other extremists (both on the far-right and far-left), then go back to business as usual. However, in reality, that's not going to happen. Trump's 2016 election is not just a momentary backlash, it represents the beginning of the end.

    Trump is to the current order what Gorbachev's Perestroika was to the pre-globalization Cold War order. He is a harbinger of what is to come.

    I recall reading that when HW Bush was advising his son during the 2016 primary, he remarked that he couldn't understand America anymore. The country had changed in ways that there were beyond him to understand.

    Here’s my impression, and I was THERE: Mr. Bush came along after a long struggle back from the malaise days of Jimmy Carter. Don’t get me wrong, Johnny, in that I agree with your assessment of President Carter from your comments a few days’s back* (coincidentally, as I’ve written, just some hours before I’d read Steve’s post about GHW Bush kicking it). In foreign policy, as the Cold War was not quite as HOT as Vietnam days, but still in going on in full swing, President Carter made America look, and actually be, ineffectual.

    It took those 2 Reagan terms, along with the continuing efforts of millions of American soldier, sailors, airmen, engineers, and technicians to end the Cold War. If you didn’t live during that time, you may not know that it was THE foreign policy issue of those 4 decades. The 1980’s came toward an end with the Cold War won** and at that point America was left as not only by far the biggest military power, but still the economic powerhouse of the world by far. This was before the NAFTA sucking sound, and way before most of other American manufacturing was outsourced to China.

    What did Mr. Bush do with the big peace dividend, in terms of both goodwill and (theoretically) extra money that did not need to be used to defend the entire 1st world anymore? He blew it all to hell with this New World Order crap. It’s not like I heard that term but the one time, and I was paying attention to politics then too. Was it orders from the Deep State? I mean, Johnny, that no self-respecting American would have though “New World Order” was anything good for the U.S. of A.

    Granted, Americans WERE gung-ho about the Gulf War (I), but that was just because it was a chance to see the great firepower that had not been used against Soviets (thankfully), and it was such a wipe-out that hardly anyone knew an American killed there. Lastly, it made people feel very good about the future where the “good guys” had the upper hand everywhere. We didn’t know the good guys were supposed to continue waging war all around the world .. not the plan, far as I knew.

    Gotta go for now, but I’ll write more in a bit. I’d love to have a Reagan thread sometime to explain a few things too. I doubt I’d see eye-to-eye on most of the commenters about the great man. Bush was no great man.

    * BTW, beyond your assessment, I think Mr. Carter was arguably the most honest and humble man in that office since the days of Hoover or Coolidge (though, I don’t know enough about Ike).

    ** Or, should I say “Cold War One”, as during those same decades and since, the internal infiltration of the Commie/ctrl-left through all the American institutions could be considered the 2nd, internal war. It was not fought at all by our side (the professors, teachers, media people, and government officials – most caved like the cowards they are).

  66. @Anon
    LA riots made him look weak, especially after tough guy act of Gulf War.

    His son also acted tough abroad but was looked esp weak with Katrina and Negroes.

    Last Republican to win California.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/ElectoralCollege1988.svg/1200px-ElectoralCollege1988.svg.png

    Trump will be last one to win Texas and Florida.

    Tragedy of American Conservatism is white conservatives do most to defend and defer to Jews who do most to demean and destroy white conservatives.

    Tragedy of American Conservatism is white conservatives do most to defend and defer to Jews who do most to demean and destroy white conservatives.

    What is your prescription?

  67. And indeed he enjoyed a number of successes, such as getting Gorbachev to take merely an oral assurance that NATO would not expand eastward rather than demand it in writing.

    Or in other words, lying.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  68. Joseph Conrad had America’s number over a hundred years ago, in his novel Nostromo, when he put the following words into the mouth of the American financier Holroyd:

    “Now, what is Costaguana? It is the bottomless pit of 10 per cent: loans and other fool investments. European capital has been flung into it with both hands for years. Not ours, though. We in this country know just about enough to keep indoors when it rains. We can sit and watch. Of course, some day we shall step in. We are bound to. But there’s no hurry. Time itself has got to wait on the greatest country in the whole of God’s Universe. We shall be giving the word for everything: industry, trade, law, journalism, art, politics, and religion, from Cape Horn clear over to Smith’s Sound, and beyond, too, if anything worth taking hold of turns up at the North Pole. And then we shall have the leisure to take in hand the outlying islands and continents of the earth. We shall run the world’s business whether the world likes it or not. The world can’t help it—and neither can we, I guess.”

  69. Anonymous[179] • Disclaimer says:

    You guys are viewing this with 30 years of hindsight. George Bush was in for a short 4 years. During that time, from a foreign policy perspective, his hands were full. First, navigating in a world where the USSR was breaking apart, which could have ended in a nuclear crisis. Second, dealing with Saddam Hussein.

    On the first point, he did a good job. On the second, he only looks good when compared to the mess his son and Obama made. There is a middle ground between keeping Saddam Hussein and full-blown democracy. We could have easily invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam, then kept the existing Sunni Baathist leadership, with the agreement that in exchange for not destabilizing oil markets and no public human rights violations, they receive aid and we look the other way about what goes on in interrogation rooms.

    On a note about Iraq, GWB’s and Paul Bremer’s decision to disband the Sunni-led Iraqi military and police state was easily one of the dumbest decisions in the US history.

  70. @JohnnyWalker123

    My impression is that Bush didn’t come to the Oval Office with too many long range plans, but instead simply had a lot of confidence in his ability to manage in whatever circumstances came up.

     

    My impression was that HW Bush (as a card-carrying member of the old establishment) saw the end of the Cold War as an opportunity to transition into a new era. An era in which the nations of the world could be linked together through trade, investment, migration, technology, and political-economic unions (such as NAFTA and NATO). He attempted to be a "big picture" architect of that new era.

    In that era, financiers, business interests, entrepreneurs, and technocrats would profit under a global Pax Americana. As third world economies grew, workers in the world's less developed regions would increase their purchasing power and create new markets. If threats arose to the order, those threats could be neutralized through broad military alliances (like the Gulf War coalition).

    At this point, it's been around 25-30 years since this "New World Order" came into being. For better and for worse, this era of globalization was initiated by HW Bush, with subsequent presidents (Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama) carrying on his legacy. You could say that other foreign leaders, especially from the Anglo-Euro zone, have been extremely supportive. For example, John Major and Tony Blair helped transition the UK (and even other parts of the Anglo-Euro zone) into the age of globalization.

    One reason that Donald Trump is viewed so negatively by the global establishment is because he's an affront to globalization. He threatens an order under which many influential people have become politically and economically enriched. The same can be said for other far-right figures (Le Pen of France, Farage of the UK, , Salvini of Italy, etc). The same can even be said of Russia and China, with both regimes being nationalist-authoritarian "renegades" who refuse to bend their knee to US-Anglo-Euro order.

    Interestingly, the far-left is also viewed as an affront to globalization. While the far-left isn't viewed with the same intensity of negativity, far-left individuals and organizations tend to be dismissed as being "fringe" or "extremist." Just look at how anti-globalization protesters are portrayed anytime there's a trade summit.

    There's often a strange convergence between the far-left and far-right. Back in the 2000 election, both Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan sounded remarkably similar. In 2016, there were more than a few times when Donald Trump spoke like Bernie Sanders. In 2017, Brexit enjoyed support from both the British far-right and the far-left. While the far-right and far-left differ in their racial and cultural attitudes, there's a shared revulsion towards financiers, oligarchs, military interventionism, and globalist institutions.

    HW Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama had their differences. What brought them together (along with foreign leaders like Tony Blair) was a shared commitment to globalization. It shouldn't be surprising that the Bushes voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. When you really think about, it shouldn't be surprising that Dennis Kucinich's sister voted for Donald Trump.

    I see HW Bush as a tremendously significant figure because he's the father of the current world order. I think that's one reason why so many political and media figures have been so effusive in praising him. This is HW Bush's world, the rest of us are just living in it. Regardless of how you feel about him and his impact, it's hard to deny that he was a giant among men.

    With that said, I think there will come a point when the current social order breaks down. Mostly due to a combination of unsustainable debt accumulation, military overstretch, and financial implosion. At that point, the US-Anglo-Euro empire will be forced to abandon the mantle of global leadership. The world will then transition from a unipolar Western-dominated order to a more of a multipolar order. In that new order, China will be the preeminent nation.

    I would guess that we're likely 10-15 years away from a full transition in the global social order, but it's already beginning to slowly happen. The global ruling class think they can somehow neutralize Trump and other extremists (both on the far-right and far-left), then go back to business as usual. However, in reality, that's not going to happen. Trump's 2016 election is not just a momentary backlash, it represents the beginning of the end.

    Trump is to the current order what Gorbachev's Perestroika was to the pre-globalization Cold War order. He is a harbinger of what is to come.

    I recall reading that when HW Bush was advising his son during the 2016 primary, he remarked that he couldn't understand America anymore. The country had changed in ways that there were beyond him to understand.

    I see HW Bush as a tremendously significant figure because he’s the father of the current world order.

    Quite the opposite. Here is my reading on G.H.W. Bush

    (1) Bush really believed that the end of Cold War would lead to disarmament. Remember the peace dividends and military bases closing?

    (2) Saddam Hussein is given green light to invade Kuwait under shady circumstances. Bush is arm twisted by Margaret Thatcher to go to war against Saddam Hussein. The war gives Bush the highest ever approval rating (90%) of any president.

    (3) Bush is pissed off with Israel that the US had to pay $600 millions to Israel just so Israel would not interfere in Iraq conflict and screw up the broad Arab coalition that Bush succeeded to organize.

    (4) Using his political capital after the war Bush wants to assert himself against Israel and Yitzhak Shamir by attaching conditions to funding for new settlements. No other president stood up to Israel like that since JFK. He wants to take a tough stand at Madrid Middle East peace conference. Allegation are made by Victor Ostrovsky that Mossad was considering assassinating Bush. Bush lost this battle because he had no guts to level with American people what was the issue about. This critical event went under the radar for most of Americans.

    http://ariwatch.com/OurAlly/FoiledAssassinationOfPresident.htm

    (5) Bush is deemed untrustworthy by the Lobby and a big risk to Israel as a second term president. Anti Bush campaign begins in NYT with weekly columns of Friedman and Safire. Bad economy meme is created.

    (6). Useful idiot Ross Perot enters the race. The exact repeat of play from 1912 election when the incumbent Taft was denied reelection by the third party run of Teddy Roosevelt to elect Wilson. Clinton is elected and just like Wilson does everything Wall Street wants. Clinton deregulates banking and sets the course for the neoliberal globalization.

  71. @reiner Tor
    The Cuban crisis was resolved by an oral agreement. The Russians would remove the nukes from Cuba, while the Americans would remove the same from Turkey. The US also promised never to invade Cuba. Interestingly, they didn’t invade Cuba even after the USSR fell.

    The Soviets/Russians had every reason to believe that the word of an American president was worth a lot.

    The Cuban crisis was resolved by an oral agreement. The Russians would remove the nukes from Cuba, while the Americans would remove the same from Turkey. The US also promised never to invade Cuba. Interestingly, they didn’t invade Cuba even after the USSR fell.

    The Soviets/Russians had every reason to believe that the word of an American president was worth a lot.

    That’s a good point. Of course, an American government that has “won” the cold war, considers itself the only remaining superpower in a unipolar world, and is drunk on its own power, proved to be a different entity altogether.

  72. @Twinkie
    I agree wholeheartedly. It’s not punishment if you leave someone in power, especially in the Middle East. The tragedy of all this is that an invasion and occupation of Iraq after Desert Storm had a much greater chance of success than what transpired in OIF.

    Our foolhardy intervention and then the ignominious withdrawal from Somalia showed the Iraqis (and others) a much more efficacious method of combating our overwhelmingly powerful firepower.

    In 1991, none of those conditions existed and the Iraqis were overwhelmed and completely awestruck by our military capacity. The Kurds and the Shia were much more friendly and would have been far more compliant to our direction. An American-installed Iraqi leader would have enjoyed a much greater confidence then. Paradoxically, weakening Saddam Hussein in 1991 made Iraq both more unstable and less amenable to subsequent occupation, yet still left him a thorn in our side.

    The great tragedy of all that followed - 9/11, the Iraq debacle, Obama, etc. - was a consequence of Bush 41’s timidity and lack of confidence (which are amply shown in his own writings) after the utter destruction of Saddam’s military capacity and the complete psychological dominance we had gained temporarily. It was our Cannae.

    The reasoning doesn’t make any sense to me.

    You say that if we had deposed Saddam during the first Gulf War, all the ill effects we saw from deposing him in 2003 would not have appeared: the unleashing of jihadis, who blew up US troops and fellow Iraqis, the infiltration of Iran into the religious and political structure of Iraq, and most puzzling: the idea that the particular Iraqi con-artist we would have supported for premier would enjoy more control or more prestige than the one we settled on in 2003.

    You state that Saddam would have been punished for his decision to oppose the US. But, we know that the US ambassador to Iraq gave him mixed or completely incorrect signals when he sounded her out about the possibility of invading Kuwait. This is in line with a consistent pattern by the US in fuzzy thinking and fuzzy-headed interventions in the area. The US supported the dissolution not only of Syria (unsuccessful) but of Libya (successful, except for unleashing massive waves of migrants, and giving jihadis a comfortable base).

    The effects of keeping Saddam in power were merely nuisance: having to monitor his weapons program, monitor his military movements, shooting down a plane once in a while. We had a base in Kuwait paid for by the Kuwaitis. Iraq still served as a counter to Iran. Saddam kept a lid on the Muslim jihadis and criminals. Iraqis were far better off under his government, although the results could be pretty horrible for some individuals.

    This is compared to after deposing Saddam, when we spent trillions of dollars pacifying Iraq, lost upwards of 4 thousand soldiers, provided a base for ISIS, and got a religious structure and political structure very favorable to Iran. Plus, got thousands of Muslim “migrants” to the US who had to be given refuge because they were our “allies” in Iraq and were now in danger.

  73. @anonymous
    As the RIP thread resumes, a clarifying question: What is, and how do the people of this country benefit from, a "triumphant era for American foreign policy"?

    Very few on this website bought into the celebration of Senator McCain. But a former President dies, and it's time to hotstove his Risk stats.

    I personally think it’s because even bloggers and commenters watch too much of the Lyin’ Press, and if this mournful infotainment goes on for a full week there, they think it’s important. Not only do I think this ex-President’s death is not important, but I think all of the revering of Presidents great and stupid is against anything the Founders of our country would have encouraged.

    The hell with all of them, going back till (arguably) Silent Calvin Coolidge or Andrew Jackson.

  74. @AnotherDad

    For example, he was enough of a globalist to take us to war in Iraq, thereby installing the very first US bases in the ME. But he was still enough of a realist to avoiding actually invading the country, which infuriated the neocons.
     
    I always find this backhanded praise of Bush's judgement in the first Gulf War bizarre. The failure to oust Saddam was a disaster.

    What was the "message" from the Gulf War? Roughly, if you grab up your neighbor's territory, the US *may*--if the pres feels like US prestige is on the line--stir himself, assemble a coalition of nations and kick you out ... but leave you in power! So, you know, do your calculation carefully, but if the odds look good … go for it!

    Basically the Gulf War was the classic "wounding the bear". We created an enemy, who we had to police in perpetuity, who was eventually--as other nations got tired of the sanctions regime--going to get his oil money flowing giving him a big wallet and who now was pissed at us, with a big chip on his shoulder. Great work Poppy!

    No. You either don't do it and take the hit to your prestige with the Gulf Arab oil pumping kleptocrats. Or you do it and make sure you kill or at least oust Saddam. Not "fix Iraq" or "nation build", but basic crime and punishment: you messed things up and made me us get up and cost the lives of American boys, you pay.

    The whole war was a set up. TPTB wanted bases in the Persian Gulf (mostly to check Iran), but putting ‘swine-eating infidels’ in countries like Saudi Arabia was going to be politically tricky, so they had to manufacture a pretext. The Iranians weren’t dumb enough to take their bait–Uncle Scam tried to provoke them by shooting down an Iranian airliner in 1988–but Saddam Hussein was dumb enough. They allowed the Kuwaitis to slant-drill into Iraqi territory, then, when Iraq complained, their ambassador (April Glaspie) told Saddam that they didn’t take positions of intramural Arab disputes. They could have easily chosen to either to reign in the Kuwaitis or to warn Saddam, but they wanted to lure Saddam into a war in Kuwait. Presto!

    That’s the backstory. It had nothing to do with removing Saddam from power, breaking up Iraq and creating total anarchy there. That was never Poppy Bush’s goal. That was the Zionist/Neocon plan for the middle east, the Oded Yinon Plan. That was rolled out 12 years later under Baby Bush, who, unlike Poppy, was a total Zio-muppet.

    • Replies: @utu
    That was never Poppy Bush’s goal. That was the Zionist/Neocon plan for the middle east, the Oded Yinon Plan.

    Correct. See comment #73.
  75. @AnotherDad

    For example, he was enough of a globalist to take us to war in Iraq, thereby installing the very first US bases in the ME. But he was still enough of a realist to avoiding actually invading the country, which infuriated the neocons.
     
    I always find this backhanded praise of Bush's judgement in the first Gulf War bizarre. The failure to oust Saddam was a disaster.

    What was the "message" from the Gulf War? Roughly, if you grab up your neighbor's territory, the US *may*--if the pres feels like US prestige is on the line--stir himself, assemble a coalition of nations and kick you out ... but leave you in power! So, you know, do your calculation carefully, but if the odds look good … go for it!

    Basically the Gulf War was the classic "wounding the bear". We created an enemy, who we had to police in perpetuity, who was eventually--as other nations got tired of the sanctions regime--going to get his oil money flowing giving him a big wallet and who now was pissed at us, with a big chip on his shoulder. Great work Poppy!

    No. You either don't do it and take the hit to your prestige with the Gulf Arab oil pumping kleptocrats. Or you do it and make sure you kill or at least oust Saddam. Not "fix Iraq" or "nation build", but basic crime and punishment: you messed things up and made me us get up and cost the lives of American boys, you pay.

    I believe he had to keep up the fantasy that he was operating under the UN resolution with a cadre of Arab allies. The resolution only called for the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait and the coalition would have shattered with a full scale invasion of Iraq.

    Of course, if we would have gone ahead and everything turn out much better than we have now, all would have been forgiven but who knows how it would have ended up. Kurds in the north pissing off Turkey, Shias in the east aligning with Iran, and something like ISIS in the middle? I doubt there would be any good result.

  76. @EliteCommInc.
    It is the most perplexing and disappointing aspect of the entire Bush political family. Despite supposed bona fide Texan's their tendency to support illegal immigrants was hard to fathom. But after taking stock of Texas politics, they have forever been favorable to Mexicans rather than their own citizens.

    It's an odd contradiction. And given the last election, Texas appears to be getting worse.


    Every president seems to think, they are going to pass this one time thing . . . so multiple presidents pass a one time policy regarding immigration.

    We have had more than five one time tings regarding illegals. it's as if n o president has taken a brief review of the issue other one time passes. Build the wall already and stop whining.

    I read somewhere on Vdare that when GHWB was wooing Salinas on NAFTA the issue of subsistence farmers in Mexico being driven off the land came up and GHWB gave tacit approval that we would look the other way when they came up here.

  77. @res
    Thanks. But why did the change manifest in 1992? In other words, what changed between the 1988 and 1992 elections? I can understand what you describe happening post Clinton's election, but had it already happened before the election, or was Clinton's win due to other factors with the lasting changes you describe following later?

    Reading more closely (e.g. Asians voted 55-31 for GHWB in 1992) and pondering a bit, I think I am just reaffirming your true point, but wanted to double check.
    Some data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Americans_in_government_and_politics#Voting_trends_and_party_affiliation

    I had been unaware of this:

    In the 2014 midterm elections, based on exit polls, 50% of Asian Americans voted Republican, while 49% voted Democrat; this swing towards voting for Republicans was a shift from the strong Democratic vote in 2012, and had not reached 50% since 1996.
     
    Do you think that is meaningful? I understand (most) Asians dislike Trump (makes sense culturally), but what happened in 2018? Asians tilted strongly D in 2018 (77/23): http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/08/the-2018-midterm-vote-divisions-by-race-gender-education/
    What was SO different between 2014 and 2018 for Asian voters?

    My guess would be that 2014 was related to the Ferguson Effect. Asians tend to vote GOP if Democrats become the black party and are seen as condoning and even supporting riotous behaviors. Trump is likely (and incorrectly) seen as white nationalist by Asians and that probably explains 2016-18.

    I have a Korean neighbor who is a die-hard Republican. His idol is Reagan. He’s your stereotypical small government, pro-military, Christian conservative. But he loathes Trump and voted for Clinton, the first time in his life he voted for a Democrat. Obviously that’s just one guy, but I do think there is considerable distaste for Trump among Asian voters in general.

  78. @Anon
    LA riots made him look weak, especially after tough guy act of Gulf War.

    His son also acted tough abroad but was looked esp weak with Katrina and Negroes.

    Last Republican to win California.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/ElectoralCollege1988.svg/1200px-ElectoralCollege1988.svg.png

    Trump will be last one to win Texas and Florida.

    Tragedy of American Conservatism is white conservatives do most to defend and defer to Jews who do most to demean and destroy white conservatives.

    LA riots made him look weak, especially after tough guy act of Gulf War.

    Nah. It was none of his business, whatever happened during those riots. I agree with A.M. on this. He didn’t win California because the demographics were changing already. The illegal alien invasion goes way back, and the Reagan-signed 1986 amnesty was already “bearing fruit” for the D’s.

    Bush did not win the election in 1992 for these reasons:

    1) People DID remember that he lied with that “read my lips, no new taxes” bit. We were still not used to ALL of them being liars yet. Now we are.

    2) Ross Perot got something like 19% of the vote, taking much more from the R-side than the D-side. Bill Clinton got 43%, if my memory is on point.

    3) He had already been blowing the promised peace dividend, and I think people though an old-fashioned (yeah, ‘cept he wasn’t) Democrat would change that. Haha, yeah, right?

    4) I’m only one guy, but as I wrote already, some of his proto-globalist crap was not sitting well with people like me. As Steve wrote, his family has big Mexican connections, or at least interests. When I heard him speak in Spanish at some campaign event, even for those 15 seconds or whatever it was, I was pissed. He lost my vote in those 15 seconds. In about 3 seconds of that, my thoughts went: “Hey, why’s he pandering to foreigners for the American Presidential election? Or, if they’re not foreigners, but just don’t speak any English while living in America, f__k these people, and why’s he pandering to them? He is not on my side!” Yeah, you can think much faster than you can read.

    I guess you could lump (4) into (2), come to think of it. I really miss Ross Perot. That’d be a guy for whom I’d be sad about when he leaves this world.

  79. @Twinkie
    I agree wholeheartedly. It’s not punishment if you leave someone in power, especially in the Middle East. The tragedy of all this is that an invasion and occupation of Iraq after Desert Storm had a much greater chance of success than what transpired in OIF.

    Our foolhardy intervention and then the ignominious withdrawal from Somalia showed the Iraqis (and others) a much more efficacious method of combating our overwhelmingly powerful firepower.

    In 1991, none of those conditions existed and the Iraqis were overwhelmed and completely awestruck by our military capacity. The Kurds and the Shia were much more friendly and would have been far more compliant to our direction. An American-installed Iraqi leader would have enjoyed a much greater confidence then. Paradoxically, weakening Saddam Hussein in 1991 made Iraq both more unstable and less amenable to subsequent occupation, yet still left him a thorn in our side.

    The great tragedy of all that followed - 9/11, the Iraq debacle, Obama, etc. - was a consequence of Bush 41’s timidity and lack of confidence (which are amply shown in his own writings) after the utter destruction of Saddam’s military capacity and the complete psychological dominance we had gained temporarily. It was our Cannae.

    We know how to win a battle but not how to win a war .

  80. @Twinkie
    I agree wholeheartedly. It’s not punishment if you leave someone in power, especially in the Middle East. The tragedy of all this is that an invasion and occupation of Iraq after Desert Storm had a much greater chance of success than what transpired in OIF.

    Our foolhardy intervention and then the ignominious withdrawal from Somalia showed the Iraqis (and others) a much more efficacious method of combating our overwhelmingly powerful firepower.

    In 1991, none of those conditions existed and the Iraqis were overwhelmed and completely awestruck by our military capacity. The Kurds and the Shia were much more friendly and would have been far more compliant to our direction. An American-installed Iraqi leader would have enjoyed a much greater confidence then. Paradoxically, weakening Saddam Hussein in 1991 made Iraq both more unstable and less amenable to subsequent occupation, yet still left him a thorn in our side.

    The great tragedy of all that followed - 9/11, the Iraq debacle, Obama, etc. - was a consequence of Bush 41’s timidity and lack of confidence (which are amply shown in his own writings) after the utter destruction of Saddam’s military capacity and the complete psychological dominance we had gained temporarily. It was our Cannae.

    You sound like expert military men. Do you fellas think “we” could have won in Korea and Vietnam, too?

    As a mere American, I was ashamed and disgusted by Desert Storm at the time, and have been ever since. You have looked into Nurse Nayirah, etc., haven’t you?

  81. @reiner Tor
    The Cuban crisis was resolved by an oral agreement. The Russians would remove the nukes from Cuba, while the Americans would remove the same from Turkey. The US also promised never to invade Cuba. Interestingly, they didn’t invade Cuba even after the USSR fell.

    The Soviets/Russians had every reason to believe that the word of an American president was worth a lot.

    The powers that be used to have a genuine fear of too many illegal aliens coming at once. This was especially true of island nations in the Caribbean like Cuba, Haiti and the DR, which would send flotillas, which were kind of like the early caravans. Plenty of imagery to alarm people and bring the immigration debate to the fore.

    Sometimes the US intervened in order to prevent too big an exodus. The motivation was obvious because that the threat which was implicitly made to them. Of course, it did not prevent them from accepting too many already in a kind of corrupt, two-faced way.

  82. @clyde
    I liked whe the George Bush people put out stuff how Bush was a big fan of Country music and loved snacking on fried pork rinds. Ever seen being fried pork rinds being made at home? I had a neighbor who did this. They are deep fried in lard.

    "Chicharrones – Bacon's Heir"

    I apologize for abusing this thread but I had to comment about fried pork rinds which are called “cracklings” where I come from. My neighbor was a butcher, primarily hogs, and he placed all the pork trimmings mainly fat into a large wood-fired iron kettle in which the trimmings would be fully cooked and rendered into lard. After most of the fat was cooked out the leavings were ladled into a compressor of sort and the remaining fat squeezed out leaving the rinds which we neighbor kids eagerly devoured. The liquid would in turn be ladled into five gallon cans and after cooling would turn into solid white lard. which in parts of the country is still used for shortening..

    • Replies: @Clyde
    What a great account. Thanks. Old time food processing. He probably used a screw press similar to ones they still use for making apple cider on a small scale today. Did you know that apple cider was traditionally made from the B grade apples? Ones that had a bruise or two or that were windfalls, meaning blown off the tree. Some cider is still made this way. Bruised means alcohol developed quicker... ..yum.
    https://tinyurl.com/y8acdud5 - Apple cider press
  83. @Mr McKenna

    he actually insisted on suspending loan guarantees to Israel until they temporarily halted illegal settlement construction on the West Bank
     
    As a result, he enjoyed the undying enmity of the 'Israel First' crowd in the USA (which of course includes the major media) and their partisans swore he would never be re-elected. Guess who won that one?

    Even if Poppy were everything his fans say, it's still true that he perpetrated W and that's enough to ruin anyone's reputation forever.

    Even if Poppy were everything his fans say, it’s still true that he perpetrated W and that’s enough to ruin anyone’s reputation forever.

    Shruber the Lame was directly responsible for bringing more pointless misery and destruction to the world than any other US President- by far. He was the worst thing that’s happened to the Middle East since the Mongols. My contempt for him is only exceeded by my contempt for the media, who after fashioning him into the second coming of Hitler, has with complete shamelessness seen fit to start a soft focus PR campaign to rehabilitate him.

    • Agree: Mr McKenna
  84. @Jack D
    Because of NAFTA, Wal-Mart is in Mexico now bigtime:

    Walmart de México y Centroamérica, also known as Walmex, Walmart's largest division outside the U.S. as of October 31, 2018, consists of 2,397 stores around the country, including 272 Walmart Supercenter stores and 163 Sam's Club stores
     
    From the wiki.

    Many of the 2,400 stores are smaller format stores that have no equivalent in the US but still they are a very big player in the Mexican retail and grocery sectors and have over 200,000 employees.

    Whoops! Egg on my face. I was tired and going from old memories when I posted that. Should have at least done a quick fact check. Sorry.

  85. Impressed by his facebook post?

    On the one hand Tyson says:

    “Further, I never touched her until I shook her hand upon departure. On that occasion, I had offered a special handshake, one I learned from a Native elder on reservation land at the edge of the Grand Canyon. You extend your thumb forward during the handshake to feel the other person’s vital spirit energy — the pulse. I’ve never forgotten that handshake, and I save it in appreciation of people with whom I’ve developed new friendships.”

    The ole Indian chief handshake . . . wtf?

    Spiritualism, NPR style?

    As opposed to down market National Enquirer spiritualism of one Tyson’s accusers:

    “For me, what was most significant, was that in this new life, long after dropping out of astrophysics graduate school, she was posting videos of colored tuning forks endowed with vibrational therapeutic energy that she channels from the orbiting planets. As a scientist, I found this odd.”

    As a “non-scientist,” I find it strange that any “scientist” would be impressed that one can somehow connect to another person’s “vital spirit” via a special handshake.

    But it does sound like a good pick up line, though one that apparently didn’t work in Tyson’s case.

    • Replies: @fitzhamilton
    In other news, a radio station in Cleveland has banned "Baby It's Cold Outside" from its holiday rotation after hundreds of these idiot #MeToo morons called in to complain that it celebrates date rape. Bwahahahahhaaaa.. ah, gasp. I can hardly breathe. These silly, silly harpies. These ridiculous eunuchs.

    https://ew.com/music/2018/12/02/baby-its-cold-outside-banned-by-cleveland-radio-station/

    This is getting to be really fun. Sit back, pop some corn and watch 4,018th (? I'm losing count here..) wave feminism eat its own fugly face.

    It's time for men to pull a reverse Lysistrata, and pull up the tree house ladder. Enough of these obnoxious cooty ridden weirdos. Enough of this nonsense. No further relations with these harridan hussies.

    Not unless she signs an iron clad consent contract: One where she promises lifelong emotional and spiritual fidelity to you alone, sexual exclusivity where she will never again have sex with any other man, where she promises to raise your children and make a home, where she forswears any fiduciary or custodial rights if she files for no fault divorce. You know: good old fashioned, truly romantic and sexy (it's about raising happy babies!) marriage.

    No more money for whores, either. Stop giving money to sluts and prostitutes. They're betraying and destroying us. Let them all shrivel up and die diddling themselves with their nasty vibrators in front of their cheap web cams to empty chat rooms. Stop fapping to the traitorous sluts. It'll be good for your bank balance, it'll intensify your will power and elan vital, take care of that carpal tunnel, improve your complexion, while possibly saving your soul.

    Good grief. It's time to man up boys, and tell these deranged sloooty borderline witches to all go to hell.

    Go off, be miserable and crazy and leave us alone already, you ridiculous thots.
  86. this reagan thing is increasingly just some fantasy. even reagan worship itself implicitly shows preference for european supermajority nationalism.

    “Why can’t (insert politician) be more like Reagan?”

    set demographics, culture war, and national debt levels back to 1979, and it would be easy for anybody to be like reagan.

    reagan wouldn’t be 1980 reagan in 2018. reagan would never be elected in 2018. would never have been governor. would never have been president. in fact under 2018 california rules, reagan wouldn’t have even been IN a general election for governor, having been eliminated in the primary by some random, useless leftist.

    this reagan worship stuff is increasingly just idiotic.

    reagan was not in a position where he had to literally try to save the ship from sinking. trump is in that position and is attacked by every person who actively wants the ship to sink. as well as every person who doesn’t understand the ship is sinking so why are you taking such radical actions drumpf?!

    • Replies: @Sarah Toga
    I used to be a Reaganite.
    I enthusiastically voted for him twice.
    Although I was against the 1986 amnesty at the time, my objection was merely on the grounds that amnesty was "not fair" to those who followed the rules.

    After a steady diet of VDARE dot com and American Renaissance, plus CIS dot org and NumbersUSA since about 2015, I am fully up to speed regarding how legal immigration is fatal to America.
    The illegal stuff is bad enough but the legal kind is born of malice aforethought.
    I am no longer a Reagan fan.

    If the Soviet Union and Iron Curtain still existed, we would be o.k. because they were contained.
    Either he or his advisors should have seen the horrific consequences of amnesty. He failed us.

    Then Reagan's veep "Poppy" Bush drove nails in the coffin with his 1990 doubling of immigration. What a fool.
  87. @Anonymous

    But a former President dies, and it’s time to hotstove his Risk stats.
     
    What do you mean?

    Comparing the shameful warmongering and other imperial acts during each presidency, as though these rulers of ours were old baseball players.

    hotstove – to pass time during the winter talking baseball

    Risk – a board game of international conflict and conquest

  88. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @South Texas Guy
    Like you've noted before, life is good in Mexico for the upper crust, and lots of money can be made there. But there's also that Spanish conquistador element running very strongly through it, so biz in Mexico is a dicey proposition.

    I know white folks with land holdings in Mexico who made sure their kids were born in Mexico to preserve citizenship, and thus full ownership, not one of those 99-year lease agreements.

    Not too sure about now, but growing up, solidly middle class (to us) mall anchor stores (JC Penney, Sears, etc.) and a few upper class stores in South Texas were among the top earners in the nation because Mexican nationals had a hard time getting decent quality merchandise in their own country. If Wal-Mart was allowed to go in whole hog, it would kill the small biz in Mexico.

    Growing up latterly in the St. Louis area (West County-the heavily Jewish Creve Coeur and Ladue were close by but we had mostly German and Irish/Italian Catholics and several flavors of Protestant: I can remember the now mostly deceased Church of Christ Scientist still had a big building with apparently good turnouts from the parking lot, but I knew more Jews than Christian Scientists, and not a one under fifty even then) one of the Jewish kids told me that he had an uncle who owned a used car lot.

    About twice a year they’d round up a few old duffers who were game and take a caravan of cars and trucks down to Mexico, loaded up with tools and appliances and whatever, and come back with wads of cash. It was illegal to import used cars and the other stuff was tariffed heavily. The trick was for the old duffers to get back out of Mexico without the cars, because their documents were marked that they had the cars. That was the secret of the scam.

    • Replies: @South Texas Guy
    I remember very much the car scam*, as well as the "we took these clothes with us when we left Mexico scam". I haven't kept up with Mexican tax policies for quite a while, but I imagine it still goes on. If not in that manner, then others.

    If remember right, to get a, say, Chrysler sedan legally would cost twice as much as in the states.
    , @Bill Jones
    Isn't the easy out to report the cars stolen?

    Instant switch from perp to victim.
  89. Bush II, McCain, Romney… that’s four consecutive GOP nominations of men with Latin America in their biographies. Bush 2.5– Jeb– would not only have added to that, but jacked it up. Or juanitoed it up.

  90. @Jack D
    Because of NAFTA, Wal-Mart is in Mexico now bigtime:

    Walmart de México y Centroamérica, also known as Walmex, Walmart's largest division outside the U.S. as of October 31, 2018, consists of 2,397 stores around the country, including 272 Walmart Supercenter stores and 163 Sam's Club stores
     
    From the wiki.

    Many of the 2,400 stores are smaller format stores that have no equivalent in the US but still they are a very big player in the Mexican retail and grocery sectors and have over 200,000 employees.

    Because of NAFTA, Wal-Mart is in Mexico now bigtime:

    ¿Hecho en China?

  91. @Almost Missouri
    It IS rather well done.

    Amusingly, the dumbass facebook commenters in hosanna mode below Tyson's post missed why his post was so good. They falsely declare it to be "a simple straightforward apology" when it is really the opposite: a smooth reframing of the accusations as being absurd and opportunistic, couched as a philosophical essay "On Being Accused", while he publicly reverse engineers the accusations.

    Smooth operator indeed.

    https://youtu.be/4TYv2PhG89A?t=73

    Amusingly, the dumbass facebook commenters in hosanna mode below Tyson’s post missed why his post was so good… a smooth reframing of the accusations as being absurd and opportunistic, couched as a philosophical essay “On Being Accused”,

    Ah, yes. Let the Negro resell you your own Enlightenment and Rationalism (innocent until proven guilty; due process) on Sundays at 100% markup. “Believe the woman” the rest of the week. This is America.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    Ah, yes. Let the Negro resell you your own Enlightenment and Rationalism (innocent until proven guilty; due process) on Sundays at 100% markup.

    Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Einstein - it's almost like Neil DeAss Tyson has made a career out of repackaging white man's science and selling it at a high markup.
  92. @Jim Christian

    Interestingly, they didn’t invade Cuba even after the USSR fell.
     
    We had 20 or 30K wounded and what, 6 or 8 KIA at Iwo Jima? It's ten or twelve miles long. Cuba has to be pushing a thousand. My Pop was sunk aboard USS Bismark Sea of Iwo Jima. Retired, but still Navy Department, he was troubled throughout his life that we could invade Cuba. And it would have been as useless to us as was Iwo Jima. Maybe Iwo Jima was a useful lesson.

    What was the strategic or tactical importance of Iwo Jima?

  93. @AnotherDad

    For example, he was enough of a globalist to take us to war in Iraq, thereby installing the very first US bases in the ME. But he was still enough of a realist to avoiding actually invading the country, which infuriated the neocons.
     
    I always find this backhanded praise of Bush's judgement in the first Gulf War bizarre. The failure to oust Saddam was a disaster.

    What was the "message" from the Gulf War? Roughly, if you grab up your neighbor's territory, the US *may*--if the pres feels like US prestige is on the line--stir himself, assemble a coalition of nations and kick you out ... but leave you in power! So, you know, do your calculation carefully, but if the odds look good … go for it!

    Basically the Gulf War was the classic "wounding the bear". We created an enemy, who we had to police in perpetuity, who was eventually--as other nations got tired of the sanctions regime--going to get his oil money flowing giving him a big wallet and who now was pissed at us, with a big chip on his shoulder. Great work Poppy!

    No. You either don't do it and take the hit to your prestige with the Gulf Arab oil pumping kleptocrats. Or you do it and make sure you kill or at least oust Saddam. Not "fix Iraq" or "nation build", but basic crime and punishment: you messed things up and made me us get up and cost the lives of American boys, you pay.

    The people fighting for America who died were not boys.

    Grow a pair and speak like a man , “Another Dad”.

    Show some respect for your betters.

    (I know you won’t, you will just, as you always do, whine about something or other, as if you were the person we should admire. Narcissism is a disease, little “Another Dad”.)

    Hate on me all you want but don’t you ever again call the men who died in battle “boys”, “Another Dad”.

  94. The 1986 amnesty was said to have “enforcement” provisions that would prevent further border jumping.
    Judging from raw numbers of illegals increasing each year during Bush The Elder 1988-1992, it appears he sabotaged said enforcement.
    (The numbers of illegals actually reduced during the first two years of Bill Clinton, then resumed their increase.)

    Was the increase in illegals deliberate (as in looking the other way when the Mexican subsistence peasant farmers were ruined by cheap American corn, thank you NAFTA) or just typical Bush family depraved indifference regarding Americans?

    Suggestion on how to judge any elected official:
    (A) reduce immigration = good
    (B) slash immigration = better
    (C) end immigration = best
    (D) fail to do any of the above = very bad, remove from office.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  95. @prime noticer
    this reagan thing is increasingly just some fantasy. even reagan worship itself implicitly shows preference for european supermajority nationalism.

    "Why can't (insert politician) be more like Reagan?"

    set demographics, culture war, and national debt levels back to 1979, and it would be easy for anybody to be like reagan.

    reagan wouldn't be 1980 reagan in 2018. reagan would never be elected in 2018. would never have been governor. would never have been president. in fact under 2018 california rules, reagan wouldn't have even been IN a general election for governor, having been eliminated in the primary by some random, useless leftist.

    this reagan worship stuff is increasingly just idiotic.

    reagan was not in a position where he had to literally try to save the ship from sinking. trump is in that position and is attacked by every person who actively wants the ship to sink. as well as every person who doesn't understand the ship is sinking so why are you taking such radical actions drumpf?!

    I used to be a Reaganite.
    I enthusiastically voted for him twice.
    Although I was against the 1986 amnesty at the time, my objection was merely on the grounds that amnesty was “not fair” to those who followed the rules.

    After a steady diet of VDARE dot com and American Renaissance, plus CIS dot org and NumbersUSA since about 2015, I am fully up to speed regarding how legal immigration is fatal to America.
    The illegal stuff is bad enough but the legal kind is born of malice aforethought.
    I am no longer a Reagan fan.

    If the Soviet Union and Iron Curtain still existed, we would be o.k. because they were contained.
    Either he or his advisors should have seen the horrific consequences of amnesty. He failed us.

    Then Reagan’s veep “Poppy” Bush drove nails in the coffin with his 1990 doubling of immigration. What a fool.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    the legal kind is born of malice aforethought.
     
    What do you mean?
  96. @AnotherDad

    For example, he was enough of a globalist to take us to war in Iraq, thereby installing the very first US bases in the ME. But he was still enough of a realist to avoiding actually invading the country, which infuriated the neocons.
     
    I always find this backhanded praise of Bush's judgement in the first Gulf War bizarre. The failure to oust Saddam was a disaster.

    What was the "message" from the Gulf War? Roughly, if you grab up your neighbor's territory, the US *may*--if the pres feels like US prestige is on the line--stir himself, assemble a coalition of nations and kick you out ... but leave you in power! So, you know, do your calculation carefully, but if the odds look good … go for it!

    Basically the Gulf War was the classic "wounding the bear". We created an enemy, who we had to police in perpetuity, who was eventually--as other nations got tired of the sanctions regime--going to get his oil money flowing giving him a big wallet and who now was pissed at us, with a big chip on his shoulder. Great work Poppy!

    No. You either don't do it and take the hit to your prestige with the Gulf Arab oil pumping kleptocrats. Or you do it and make sure you kill or at least oust Saddam. Not "fix Iraq" or "nation build", but basic crime and punishment: you messed things up and made me us get up and cost the lives of American boys, you pay.

    “Gentlemen. If you’re going to take Vienna, take it.”

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7598655-gentlemen-if-you-re-going-to-take-vienna-take-it

    PS how would I do the above as a hyperlink?

  97. @RichardTaylor
    Funny how the old time White Americans up north, who never saw non-Whites, could hold the view that everybody, everywhere, was the same. They just needed the rule of law. Or something.

    … perhaps the religious Universalism of the Northern Unitarian-Universalists mutated into a sociological/secular/political “universalism”. Which further mutated into the egalitarianism of today.

    After all, the UU were quite influential. They produced many professors for many elite colleges.

  98. @Digital Samizdat
    The whole war was a set up. TPTB wanted bases in the Persian Gulf (mostly to check Iran), but putting 'swine-eating infidels' in countries like Saudi Arabia was going to be politically tricky, so they had to manufacture a pretext. The Iranians weren't dumb enough to take their bait--Uncle Scam tried to provoke them by shooting down an Iranian airliner in 1988--but Saddam Hussein was dumb enough. They allowed the Kuwaitis to slant-drill into Iraqi territory, then, when Iraq complained, their ambassador (April Glaspie) told Saddam that they didn't take positions of intramural Arab disputes. They could have easily chosen to either to reign in the Kuwaitis or to warn Saddam, but they wanted to lure Saddam into a war in Kuwait. Presto!

    That's the backstory. It had nothing to do with removing Saddam from power, breaking up Iraq and creating total anarchy there. That was never Poppy Bush's goal. That was the Zionist/Neocon plan for the middle east, the Oded Yinon Plan. That was rolled out 12 years later under Baby Bush, who, unlike Poppy, was a total Zio-muppet.

    That was never Poppy Bush’s goal. That was the Zionist/Neocon plan for the middle east, the Oded Yinon Plan.

    Correct. See comment #73.

  99. @frank d. niles
    Impressed by his facebook post?

    On the one hand Tyson says:

    "Further, I never touched her until I shook her hand upon departure. On that occasion, I had offered a special handshake, one I learned from a Native elder on reservation land at the edge of the Grand Canyon. You extend your thumb forward during the handshake to feel the other person’s vital spirit energy -- the pulse. I’ve never forgotten that handshake, and I save it in appreciation of people with whom I’ve developed new friendships."

    The ole Indian chief handshake . . . wtf?

    Spiritualism, NPR style?

    As opposed to down market National Enquirer spiritualism of one Tyson's accusers:

    "For me, what was most significant, was that in this new life, long after dropping out of astrophysics graduate school, she was posting videos of colored tuning forks endowed with vibrational therapeutic energy that she channels from the orbiting planets. As a scientist, I found this odd."

    As a "non-scientist," I find it strange that any "scientist" would be impressed that one can somehow connect to another person's "vital spirit" via a special handshake.

    But it does sound like a good pick up line, though one that apparently didn't work in Tyson's case.

    In other news, a radio station in Cleveland has banned “Baby It’s Cold Outside” from its holiday rotation after hundreds of these idiot #MeToo morons called in to complain that it celebrates date rape. Bwahahahahhaaaa.. ah, gasp. I can hardly breathe. These silly, silly harpies. These ridiculous eunuchs.

    https://ew.com/music/2018/12/02/baby-its-cold-outside-banned-by-cleveland-radio-station/

    This is getting to be really fun. Sit back, pop some corn and watch 4,018th (? I’m losing count here..) wave feminism eat its own fugly face.

    It’s time for men to pull a reverse Lysistrata, and pull up the tree house ladder. Enough of these obnoxious cooty ridden weirdos. Enough of this nonsense. No further relations with these harridan hussies.

    Not unless she signs an iron clad consent contract: One where she promises lifelong emotional and spiritual fidelity to you alone, sexual exclusivity where she will never again have sex with any other man, where she promises to raise your children and make a home, where she forswears any fiduciary or custodial rights if she files for no fault divorce. You know: good old fashioned, truly romantic and sexy (it’s about raising happy babies!) marriage.

    No more money for whores, either. Stop giving money to sluts and prostitutes. They’re betraying and destroying us. Let them all shrivel up and die diddling themselves with their nasty vibrators in front of their cheap web cams to empty chat rooms. Stop fapping to the traitorous sluts. It’ll be good for your bank balance, it’ll intensify your will power and elan vital, take care of that carpal tunnel, improve your complexion, while possibly saving your soul.

    Good grief. It’s time to man up boys, and tell these deranged sloooty borderline witches to all go to hell.

    Go off, be miserable and crazy and leave us alone already, you ridiculous thots.

  100. My theory: GHWB realized, in his late 80’s that all ideas of Utopia (The UN fantasy – which has already, cost thousands of lives – but, that is also the point, hahaaa) and reducing human population down (without mass killings? hmmm? how was that ever going to be palatable?) in his sons’ and grandchildren’s lifetime was never gonna happen.

    He was always a very mediocre man, intellectually; and, he certainly showed that all his life. He was so creepy and boring at the same time.

    It is just nicey-nice to say good things about him, at this point. However, George was responsible for killing about 500,000-1,000,000 Iraqi civilians; – counting in the Kurds & Sunnis that died in Desert Storm..and months later.

  101. @Jim Christian

    Interestingly, they didn’t invade Cuba even after the USSR fell.
     
    We had 20 or 30K wounded and what, 6 or 8 KIA at Iwo Jima? It's ten or twelve miles long. Cuba has to be pushing a thousand. My Pop was sunk aboard USS Bismark Sea of Iwo Jima. Retired, but still Navy Department, he was troubled throughout his life that we could invade Cuba. And it would have been as useless to us as was Iwo Jima. Maybe Iwo Jima was a useful lesson.

    The strategical importance was an airstrip for bombing missions to Japan. Otherwise, nothing. The island was given back to Japan in the 60’s or so.

  102. @Anonymous
    Growing up latterly in the St. Louis area (West County-the heavily Jewish Creve Coeur and Ladue were close by but we had mostly German and Irish/Italian Catholics and several flavors of Protestant: I can remember the now mostly deceased Church of Christ Scientist still had a big building with apparently good turnouts from the parking lot, but I knew more Jews than Christian Scientists, and not a one under fifty even then) one of the Jewish kids told me that he had an uncle who owned a used car lot.

    About twice a year they'd round up a few old duffers who were game and take a caravan of cars and trucks down to Mexico, loaded up with tools and appliances and whatever, and come back with wads of cash. It was illegal to import used cars and the other stuff was tariffed heavily. The trick was for the old duffers to get back out of Mexico without the cars, because their documents were marked that they had the cars. That was the secret of the scam.

    I remember very much the car scam*, as well as the “we took these clothes with us when we left Mexico scam”. I haven’t kept up with Mexican tax policies for quite a while, but I imagine it still goes on. If not in that manner, then others.

    If remember right, to get a, say, Chrysler sedan legally would cost twice as much as in the states.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Latin states have a tendency to "protect" local industry with onerous tariffs even, maybe especially, when the local industry doesn't even exist. Very little truly indigenous serious manufacturing exists in Mexico, only maquiladora plants and a few companies from overseas who produce for internal domestic consumption in Mexico.

    When we were down there in the 70s, I remember talking to a Mexican aircraft mechanic, who stated that you could not buy decent hand tools in Mexico: aviation specific supplies could be ordered OK via truck from California, but regular items had to be smuggled in or bought from dodgy vendors at double or triple US prices.

    Apparently, the people who run Mexico like it the way that it is.
  103. To me the great tragedy of his presidency is that he didn’t take advantage of the collapse of the USSR and its hold on east Europe to withdraw America from NATO, bring the boys home and give Americans a REAL peace dividend.

  104. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @South Texas Guy
    I remember very much the car scam*, as well as the "we took these clothes with us when we left Mexico scam". I haven't kept up with Mexican tax policies for quite a while, but I imagine it still goes on. If not in that manner, then others.

    If remember right, to get a, say, Chrysler sedan legally would cost twice as much as in the states.

    Latin states have a tendency to “protect” local industry with onerous tariffs even, maybe especially, when the local industry doesn’t even exist. Very little truly indigenous serious manufacturing exists in Mexico, only maquiladora plants and a few companies from overseas who produce for internal domestic consumption in Mexico.

    When we were down there in the 70s, I remember talking to a Mexican aircraft mechanic, who stated that you could not buy decent hand tools in Mexico: aviation specific supplies could be ordered OK via truck from California, but regular items had to be smuggled in or bought from dodgy vendors at double or triple US prices.

    Apparently, the people who run Mexico like it the way that it is.

  105. It’s always the same damn problem. The problem is not that people fail to learn from history. People think that’s the problem, but it isn’t. The problem is that people over-learn the lessons of history. After running into a ditch on the left side of the road, they extricate themselves, swear it will never happen again, and continue on their merry way, laser focused on that last hazard, ignoring everything else, until they drive right into a ditch on the right side of the road.

    Bush, just like every post war president, governed based on wisdom gleaned from the Second World War, in the context of the nation-state. He did the best he could using that framework.

    Now it is plain as day, even to casual observers, that the post-war framework that Bush used is dated and useless. The gravest threats are not conventional armed forces and hostile governments, it is chaotic, disorganized immivasion combined with demographic and cultural displacement. The important conflict is not global east- global west, it is global north-global south.

    Bush did not see this. Buchanan did. Bush understood only the lessons of his own generation. “He who knows only his own generation, remains forever a child.” Bush was never more than a somewhat clever, reliable boy. Buchanan is a wise man.

  106. @AnotherDad

    For example, he was enough of a globalist to take us to war in Iraq, thereby installing the very first US bases in the ME. But he was still enough of a realist to avoiding actually invading the country, which infuriated the neocons.
     
    I always find this backhanded praise of Bush's judgement in the first Gulf War bizarre. The failure to oust Saddam was a disaster.

    What was the "message" from the Gulf War? Roughly, if you grab up your neighbor's territory, the US *may*--if the pres feels like US prestige is on the line--stir himself, assemble a coalition of nations and kick you out ... but leave you in power! So, you know, do your calculation carefully, but if the odds look good … go for it!

    Basically the Gulf War was the classic "wounding the bear". We created an enemy, who we had to police in perpetuity, who was eventually--as other nations got tired of the sanctions regime--going to get his oil money flowing giving him a big wallet and who now was pissed at us, with a big chip on his shoulder. Great work Poppy!

    No. You either don't do it and take the hit to your prestige with the Gulf Arab oil pumping kleptocrats. Or you do it and make sure you kill or at least oust Saddam. Not "fix Iraq" or "nation build", but basic crime and punishment: you messed things up and made me us get up and cost the lives of American boys, you pay.

    Nope. The thinking was Realist. Oust Saddam and you would hand it over de facto to Iran. The aim was fairly sensible (given the frame of a less than sensible devotion to organizing the affairs of the ME) – balance Iran and Iraq.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The thinking was Realist. Oust Saddam and you would hand it over de facto to Iran.
     
    Not if Iraqi government had remained intact and it had not been De-Ba'athified. We could have simply killed or exiled Saddam Hussein and cut a deal with the remainder of the regime (return to status quo ante bellum, a bit more autonomy for the Kurds and the Shia).
    , @Johann Ricke

    Nope. The thinking was Realist. Oust Saddam and you would hand it over de facto to Iran. The aim was fairly sensible (given the frame of a less than sensible devotion to organizing the affairs of the ME) – balance Iran and Iraq.
     
    When Crassus ventured forth to fight the Parthians for fame and fortune, and the Parthians decapitated him, did that hand Rome over to its enemies? Prior to the modern era, we could simply have asked for Saddam's head on a silver platter, along with those of his direct kin, and his generals would have delivered. A short power struggle might have transpired, but regime collapse was unlikely, given how well the Baath Party acquitted itself during the insurgency (admittedly in the face of Western ROE's tailor-made for keeping the insurgency alive), on a shoestring, to the point it would have won, absent American firepower. It's unfortunate that in the course of manufacturing a fig leaf (war crimes prosecutions) for executing key players among the defeated Axis powers to avoid a resurrection of the Axis threat, we manacled ourselves pretty much for the rest of time, while our enemies have no such scruples.
  107. @RadicalCenter
    Interesting facts, thank you.

    As for the Asian voting population of the USA in 1992, I imagine it was insignificant outside of Hawaii, parts of California, and not many other enclaves back then.

    Growing up in northern NJ in the 70s and 80s, pretty near to NYC, it was unusual and noteworthy when the first Chinese family and first Korean family came to our town. Ended up being friendly with a boy from each family.

    As for the Asian voting population of the USA in 1992, I imagine it was insignificant outside of Hawaii, parts of California, and not many other enclaves back then.

    Asian population in the U.S. c. 1990 was roughly 7 million out of the overall population under 250 million. So it was a bit under 3% (as opposed to roughly 6% as of 2016) . Smaller than (half of) what it is today, to be sure, but not insignificant. I think, though, the Asian population outside Hawaii was heavily concentrated in L.A., San Francisco, and NYC, much more so than is the case today.

  108. @TomSchmidt
    Look at it from the POV of Saddam. That man blew the greatest opportunity of the century: why stop at Kuwait and not continue in to seize Saudi Arabia's oil fields and infrastructure? There was literally nothing to stop him. Having seized the infrastructure, no war to dislodge him could have been launched, since he now had the oil-dependent industrialized West by the cojones. Recall that he did set the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire before restreating. Imagine the loss of Saudi production for a year and what it would have done to the economies of the world.

    April Glaspie essentially told Saddam he could take Kuwait. Then, after he did so, we reneged on the deal. GHWB got authorization from the UN only to remove Saddam from Kuwait. He did so, claiming also to have undone the Vietnam malaise in the process.

    In counterfactual history, Saddam becomes the second-biggest loser after Hitler, who might have ended the war with more daring attacks. Saddam could have controlled all the oil resources of Iraq (and there are a lot, and the lifting costs for the oil are the lowest in the planet), Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, and there would have been nothing we could have done once he did. Instead, he trusted the Bush family, and paid the price.

    That man blew the greatest opportunity of the century: why stop at Kuwait and not continue in to seize Saudi Arabia’s oil fields and infrastructure? There was literally nothing to stop him.

    True. After Saddam Hussein seized Kuwait, the only American military units immediately available in Saudi Arabia were air units (whose crews were told to take off, attack the Iraqi units, and then rally back in Bahrain in case the Iraqis crossed the Saudi border) and some rapid deployment army units, mostly elements of the 82nd Airborne Division with very light man-portable anti-tank weapons. All the heavy mechanized units were en route from Germany and would take weeks to arrive.

    If the Iraqi mechanized units had attacked in strength across the border, there was a pretty good chance the Saudi defenses would have crumbled and Saddam may have been able to occupy Saudi Arabia as well.

    Having seized the infrastructure, no war to dislodge him could have been launched, since he now had the oil-dependent industrialized West by the cojones.

    However, this would have been a high reward/very high risk strategy for Saddam Hussein. He’d have (temporarily) controlled Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, but in all likelihood the response from the U.S. and the rest of the world would have been even more overwhelming (and the Iraqi units would have been far more spread out and extended), and almost certainly he’d have been defeated and deposed.

    The best strategy for Saddam would have been to simply loot Kuwait and then withdraw back to Iraq. Then the U.S. would not have been able to muster a coalition and would not have had the casus belli to deploy heavy units from Germany. Saddam would enjoy increased prestige domestically for having “punished” Kuwait, his army would be intact with a greatly improved morale, and he might have had a good chance of the Saudis and Kuwaitis being more deferential subsequently.

  109. @blank-misgivings
    Nope. The thinking was Realist. Oust Saddam and you would hand it over de facto to Iran. The aim was fairly sensible (given the frame of a less than sensible devotion to organizing the affairs of the ME) - balance Iran and Iraq.

    The thinking was Realist. Oust Saddam and you would hand it over de facto to Iran.

    Not if Iraqi government had remained intact and it had not been De-Ba’athified. We could have simply killed or exiled Saddam Hussein and cut a deal with the remainder of the regime (return to status quo ante bellum, a bit more autonomy for the Kurds and the Shia).

  110. Thankfully George Bush is now an “In-Box President”

    Unfortunately it’s forty years too late.

  111. @Anonymous
    Growing up latterly in the St. Louis area (West County-the heavily Jewish Creve Coeur and Ladue were close by but we had mostly German and Irish/Italian Catholics and several flavors of Protestant: I can remember the now mostly deceased Church of Christ Scientist still had a big building with apparently good turnouts from the parking lot, but I knew more Jews than Christian Scientists, and not a one under fifty even then) one of the Jewish kids told me that he had an uncle who owned a used car lot.

    About twice a year they'd round up a few old duffers who were game and take a caravan of cars and trucks down to Mexico, loaded up with tools and appliances and whatever, and come back with wads of cash. It was illegal to import used cars and the other stuff was tariffed heavily. The trick was for the old duffers to get back out of Mexico without the cars, because their documents were marked that they had the cars. That was the secret of the scam.

    Isn’t the easy out to report the cars stolen?

    Instant switch from perp to victim.

  112. @Anon
    OT

    I was delighted to see that Neil deGrasse Tyson had been #metoo'd. Blackies be blackin' and all. He seems like the ultimate affirmative action black guy.

    But his Facebook post completely convinced me that he is innocent.

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/on-being-accused/10156870826326613/

    Normally I would recommend that people accused not comment and ignore the accusations. Or else say nothing and file a lawsuit without comment and prosecute it to the end. You can't win a guerrilla war against Twitter mobs.

    But Tyson's Facebook post is rather well done.

    VoxDay has a good, interesting, non-boomer take on this here.

    But his Facebook post completely convinced me that he is innocent.

    His facebook post is completely convincing that he’s a creepy boomer weirdo trying to hit on and bed his underlings while still maintaining plausible deniability for his creepy weirdo fanbois.

  113. @Abe

    Amusingly, the dumbass facebook commenters in hosanna mode below Tyson’s post missed why his post was so good... a smooth reframing of the accusations as being absurd and opportunistic, couched as a philosophical essay “On Being Accused”,
     
    Ah, yes. Let the Negro resell you your own Enlightenment and Rationalism (innocent until proven guilty; due process) on Sundays at 100% markup. “Believe the woman” the rest of the week. This is America.

    Ah, yes. Let the Negro resell you your own Enlightenment and Rationalism (innocent until proven guilty; due process) on Sundays at 100% markup.

    Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Einstein – it’s almost like Neil DeAss Tyson has made a career out of repackaging white man’s science and selling it at a high markup.

  114. @Simply Simon
    I apologize for abusing this thread but I had to comment about fried pork rinds which are called "cracklings" where I come from. My neighbor was a butcher, primarily hogs, and he placed all the pork trimmings mainly fat into a large wood-fired iron kettle in which the trimmings would be fully cooked and rendered into lard. After most of the fat was cooked out the leavings were ladled into a compressor of sort and the remaining fat squeezed out leaving the rinds which we neighbor kids eagerly devoured. The liquid would in turn be ladled into five gallon cans and after cooling would turn into solid white lard. which in parts of the country is still used for shortening..

    What a great account. Thanks. Old time food processing. He probably used a screw press similar to ones they still use for making apple cider on a small scale today. Did you know that apple cider was traditionally made from the B grade apples? Ones that had a bruise or two or that were windfalls, meaning blown off the tree. Some cider is still made this way. Bruised means alcohol developed quicker… ..yum.
    https://tinyurl.com/y8acdud5 – Apple cider press

  115. @AnotherDad

    For example, he was enough of a globalist to take us to war in Iraq, thereby installing the very first US bases in the ME. But he was still enough of a realist to avoiding actually invading the country, which infuriated the neocons.
     
    I always find this backhanded praise of Bush's judgement in the first Gulf War bizarre. The failure to oust Saddam was a disaster.

    What was the "message" from the Gulf War? Roughly, if you grab up your neighbor's territory, the US *may*--if the pres feels like US prestige is on the line--stir himself, assemble a coalition of nations and kick you out ... but leave you in power! So, you know, do your calculation carefully, but if the odds look good … go for it!

    Basically the Gulf War was the classic "wounding the bear". We created an enemy, who we had to police in perpetuity, who was eventually--as other nations got tired of the sanctions regime--going to get his oil money flowing giving him a big wallet and who now was pissed at us, with a big chip on his shoulder. Great work Poppy!

    No. You either don't do it and take the hit to your prestige with the Gulf Arab oil pumping kleptocrats. Or you do it and make sure you kill or at least oust Saddam. Not "fix Iraq" or "nation build", but basic crime and punishment: you messed things up and made me us get up and cost the lives of American boys, you pay.

    Who cares? None of our business. The better approach would have been to do nothing at all. Saddam’s secular regime was no worse than the rich Kuwaiti swine-ogopoly.

  116. @blank-misgivings
    Nope. The thinking was Realist. Oust Saddam and you would hand it over de facto to Iran. The aim was fairly sensible (given the frame of a less than sensible devotion to organizing the affairs of the ME) - balance Iran and Iraq.

    Nope. The thinking was Realist. Oust Saddam and you would hand it over de facto to Iran. The aim was fairly sensible (given the frame of a less than sensible devotion to organizing the affairs of the ME) – balance Iran and Iraq.

    When Crassus ventured forth to fight the Parthians for fame and fortune, and the Parthians decapitated him, did that hand Rome over to its enemies? Prior to the modern era, we could simply have asked for Saddam’s head on a silver platter, along with those of his direct kin, and his generals would have delivered. A short power struggle might have transpired, but regime collapse was unlikely, given how well the Baath Party acquitted itself during the insurgency (admittedly in the face of Western ROE’s tailor-made for keeping the insurgency alive), on a shoestring, to the point it would have won, absent American firepower. It’s unfortunate that in the course of manufacturing a fig leaf (war crimes prosecutions) for executing key players among the defeated Axis powers to avoid a resurrection of the Axis threat, we manacled ourselves pretty much for the rest of time, while our enemies have no such scruples.

  117. @Jim Christian

    Interestingly, they didn’t invade Cuba even after the USSR fell.
     
    We had 20 or 30K wounded and what, 6 or 8 KIA at Iwo Jima? It's ten or twelve miles long. Cuba has to be pushing a thousand. My Pop was sunk aboard USS Bismark Sea of Iwo Jima. Retired, but still Navy Department, he was troubled throughout his life that we could invade Cuba. And it would have been as useless to us as was Iwo Jima. Maybe Iwo Jima was a useful lesson.

    What was useless about Iwo Jima?

    I don’t understand why your father was troubled by Cuba.

  118. @Sarah Toga
    I used to be a Reaganite.
    I enthusiastically voted for him twice.
    Although I was against the 1986 amnesty at the time, my objection was merely on the grounds that amnesty was "not fair" to those who followed the rules.

    After a steady diet of VDARE dot com and American Renaissance, plus CIS dot org and NumbersUSA since about 2015, I am fully up to speed regarding how legal immigration is fatal to America.
    The illegal stuff is bad enough but the legal kind is born of malice aforethought.
    I am no longer a Reagan fan.

    If the Soviet Union and Iron Curtain still existed, we would be o.k. because they were contained.
    Either he or his advisors should have seen the horrific consequences of amnesty. He failed us.

    Then Reagan's veep "Poppy" Bush drove nails in the coffin with his 1990 doubling of immigration. What a fool.

    the legal kind is born of malice aforethought.

    What do you mean?

    • Replies: @Sarah Toga
    Because the negative consequences of immigration are quantified over the long term and plainly known, the only reason anyone would support legal immigration is to intentionally inflict harm to Americans.
  119. @Anonymous

    the legal kind is born of malice aforethought.
     
    What do you mean?

    Because the negative consequences of immigration are quantified over the long term and plainly known, the only reason anyone would support legal immigration is to intentionally inflict harm to Americans.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2